[Note that I don't ever advocate that you vandalize Wikipedia, as it would be stupid and pointless when they undo your edits. But there are standards of neutrality, sourcing, and verifiability that you should hold your client's/brand's entry to that sometimes are overlooked by the more senior editors. -Shabbir]
Introduction
On September 15th, 2009 the Humane Society released a video taken by a third party that they claimed showed hens kept in cruel conditions at the facility of an IHOP supplier, Michael Foods. On October 1 began an 11 day Wikipedia edit war on IHOP's Wikipedia entry. The resulting two sentences were gerrymandered by opposing forces until a perceived consensus was reached on October 11th. This is the story of that battle and what you can learn about editing your own client's Wikipedia entries to soften poorly sourced criticism.Why Wikipedia?
Have you noticed that for any name you search for in Google, the top search result is often the owner of that name, and somewhere in the next four results is the Wikipedia entry? Wikipedia ranks very high in Google's algorithms for search results and probably always will. Because of it's lack of advertising, open edit policy, and non-commercial nature, the Wikipedia is perceived as a neutral authority on many topics.
The New York Times enjoys a reputation as the "paper of record" and public relations people spend a lot of time making sure that what a New York Times reporter writes is accurate and puts their client in the best possible light. The same is true for what is written in Wikipedia about their client, the difference being that representatives of the interested parties can actually make the edits themselves.
The first shot
The opening salvo in the Wikipedia edit war came two weeks after the Humane Society launched its campaign. A user named "Smiling and singing" who had never edited an entry before added an entire section entitled "Battery Cage Controversy" with an entry that read:
Many restaurant chains are already using cage-free eggs including Denny's, Burger King, Wendy's, Quiznos, Red Robin, Carl's Jr., and Hardee's. The largest foodservice companies in the country are all using cage-free eggs including Compass Group, ARAMARK, and Sodexo. All of the largest grocery store chains offer cage-free eggs -- even Wal-Mart and Costco have exclusive cage-free egg policies for their private label. Corporate and government institutions are using cage-free eggs in their dining operations including The House of Representatives, Senate, NASA, AOL, Google, Nike, National Institutes of Health, Microsoft, and many more. And over 400 universities across the country are using cage-free eggs.
Despite this move toward animal welfare, IHOP still only uses eggs form hens confined in battery cages.
The source cited for this was East Bay Animal Advocates, a Martinez, CA-based animal-rights organization.
An experienced Wikipedia editor named Jeremey (Jerem43) removed the edits, noting they were made in good faith and merely poorly written and sourced.
Two days later, another new user with no other edits on Wikipedia showed up and wrote a more detailed entry. We'll never know who they were because they merely used an IP address belonging to Frontier Communications out of Rochester, NY who is presumably their Internet Service Provider. The entry was more neutral in its tone, while still failing Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View, Sourcing, and Verifiability tests:
Egg Controversy
IHOP has been accused of animal cruelty by the ((Humane Society of America)) for it's egg producer's practices of using ((battery cages)). An undercover video, unearthed in September of 2009, showed workers abusing hens and the unsanitary conditions of the facility. Several complaints were registered from many long time customers of IHOP via it's ((Facebook)) page, however IHOP has repeatedly deleted many of these posts in order to curb bad press.
Later that same day, another user, "StoppingTheSpin", who has also edited the Humane Society's entry, expanded on that section, using more emotional language and citing complaints on IHOP's Facebook fan page:
Egg ControversyIHOP has been accused of animal cruelty and food safety threats by the Humane Society of the United States because of the company's exclusive use of eggs from hens confined in small wire cages known as battery cages. A September 2009 undercover video of IHOP's egg supplier documented decomposing hens in cages with live hens, sick and injured hens in cages with other hens, living and dead hens stuck between cage wires, a worker ripping off the head of a live bird, piles of dead hens in the facilities, and unsanitary conditions throughout the operation.
Tens of thousands of consumers called and emailed IHOP to urge the company to switch some of its eggs to cage-free to address the animal cruelty and food safety crisis within its eggs supply. Hundreds of complaints were also registered from many long time customers of IHOP via the company's own Facebook page, however IHOP has repeatedly deleted many of these posts in its attempt to curb damaging publicity.
The same experienced editor, Jeremy, changed the name of the section to simply "Controversies", indicated that it needed sourcing and let it stand.
The next day, October 4th, brought a new edit from "Sarah hsus". Either her last name is "Hsus", or she was indicating an affiliation with the Humane Society of the United States, who often abbreviates their name as HSUS.
There's nothing wrong with an organization with a point of view contributing to Wikipedia, as long as they abide by the rules. In this case Sarah added citations to the Humane Society's own web pages. Jeremy, the volunteer editor that watches this page came along and made minor edits to her work, but let it stand as is.
The last battle
On October 11th, again a new user named Wolvesgod with no other edits deleted the entire Controversies section, claiming (typos included) "Entire section was unverifiable,citing sources that are not not public domain. The sources consited of general hompages and one biased site." Five minutes later an unregistered user from Duke University's network joined the fray. This user does not have a registered Wikipedia account. Their ongoing edits have so impressed the Wikipedia admins that they've encouraged the user to get a registered account so they can be credited for their contributions, which they describe as "clueful and intelligent".The mysterious Duke user's final edit, as it stands today, is:
ControversiesThe two sources cited are the advocacy group that initially took the video, Compassion Over Killing, and the Humane Society itself.
IHOP has been accused of animal cruelty and food safety threats by the Humane Society of the United States because of the company's exclusive use of eggs from hens confined in small wire cages known as battery cages.[4] A September 2009 undercover video of IHOP's egg supplier documented decomposing hens in cages with live hens, sick and injured hens in cages with other hens, living and dead hens stuck between cage wires, a worker ripping off the head of a live bird, piles of dead hens in the facilities, and unsanitary conditions throughout the operation.[5]
What does this mean for my brand?
You need to ensure that the Wikipedia entries for your brand or your client is accurate. Start by looking at the entry and apply Wikipedia's own tests. When you disagree with the Wikipedia entry, you can either try and fix the problem yourself, or hope that someone who disagrees with the entry's text will make your edits for you.
What is a realistic expectation?
Ultimately, you cannot keep verifiable facts from reputable sources out of your Wikipedia entry. If one or more reputable news outlets somewhere says your product sickened a dozen people when they consumed it, get used to seeing that in your Wikipedia entry. The three key elements of Wikipedia's sourcing are "No Original Research", "Verifiability", and "Neutral Point of View". They can help you soften what is written about you if you learn the rules.
Is it neutral?
If not, rewrite it yourself or flag it according to the directions at the Neutral Point Of View page (http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute). You cannot get away with changing one block of one-sided text to another, but you can probably remove most of the opinion. Consider citing prominent people who disagree with your opponent's point of view in your citations.
For more explanation on how to apply Wikipedia's own Neutrality Principles to your client's texts, see http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Is the article verifiable? Does it contain original research?
Check that the claims in your entry are reliably sourced. Are they so poor that you could argue that they are biased? Then find countervaling sources and remove the offending text, pointing out on the discussion page for the article that this is not a widely held fact, and more reputable sources have gone father.
Because the arbiter of a Wikipedia entry are external sources, you can limit entries about your brand and your clients to only what is verifiable, and keep emotions and ad hoc commentary out.
Comments