Excellent post, Josh! I'm anxious to read the comments that will hopefully follow.

Earlier this year, I added my company to Wikipedia after discovering that nothing existed in their database about us. I never found any clear direction on how to go about doing it, so I just posted the information.

I've noticed that many corporate entries on Wikipedia include their operating budgets, financials, even executive management headshots and high-res copies of their corporate logos. Not sure how all that is done.

Southwest Airlines is a good example. Lots of great stats, including the number of aircraft in their fleet and which ones have been involved in accidents. Who posts all that information? They also post upcoming cities with new service. I have to think that Southwest has something to do with posting that information.

The entity the wikipedia page is about is going to be the best source of most information on the page.

As long as they aren't editing out controversial statements or making false claims, I'd think it'd be best to have the corporation involved.

Then again, wikipedians are an interesting breed of folks... ;)

I just posted on this same subject, too funny.

I think you've nailed it, but you've made 2 assumptions:

* That the client believes this is important enough to deal with the potential fallout

* That the client is ready to handle said fallout.

I don't think it's THAT tough to deal with the fallout, you just be honest and say "We've followed the steps that Wikipedia dictates, and we're completely willing to have the conversation about whether our additions made sense."

I'd also wonder if it's not a good idea to post something publicly so that when the context of these things is lost later (i.e. when someone uses wikiscanner and simply sees that Company XYZ has made changes to their own content), you're able to point to something on a blog or other means that is dated to show this very debate.

The reason everyone's writing about Wikipedia is that it's not settled. Just look at the discussion on the relevant policy pages within WP. So any company that tries to do things on Wikipedia—the "right" way or the "wrong" way—risks becoming a case study. But I think your plan looks reasonable.

As for starting the discussion page, I don't see any reason not to. The first comment creates the page, but it's really no different than participating in an ongoing discussion.

Editing as a registered user, with your interests disclosed on your user page and the talk page, should innoculate you from Wikiscanner.

I'd suggest having the transparency/authenticity talk with your client, and encourage them to put a Wikipedia policy in place to prevent future problems caused by enthusiastic employees.

Alex said: "The entity the wikipedia page is about is going to be the best source of most information on the page."

Personally, I completely agree. At least that the entity involved is interesting to hear from in the overall "history".

According to Wikipedia itself, however, autobiography is inherently biased. (More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AUTO) I don't really agree, and personally, I don't think that Wikipedia's mission is about elimination of bias like many think it is. It's about *balancing* bias, which is sorta what the foundational principle of NPOV (Neutral Point of View) is about, at least in theory.

But yeah, as I blogged about, I don't believe that the actual players in the process aren't welcomed simply because they were there. Imagine if today we had an participation from Einstein in the Manhattan Project entry. Certainly he may be biased or overly positive, but so what? Couldn't we append his edits to balance or add other views?

I wish more Wikipedia admins would imagine the future value of the oral history as much as the quest to remove bias.

Josh: glad to see you taking up this question. I'd like to get to a much clearer consensus around this. The policies are pretty clear, and they default to preferences for third parties writing the entries. If we understand that WP "strongly discourages" anyone from editing or drafting entries for which they have a vested interest (and will redact those edits), then it seems to me that the only legit edits would be those of factual inaccuracy.

Anything POV related is going to be problematic. There simply aren't resources to arbitrate every entry, so anything that feels like it has a non-neutral stance is going to get flagged. Mostly I think our job is to explain to clients where the WP community is coming from. If there are larger issues, I'd take it up in the talk section of the article. If, as you suggest Josh, there is no additional feedback around the suggestion, then I'd prepare for page reversions after the client makes the edits. At that point, there may be some talk.

My preference is to point out inaccuracies on my own sites and in talk, and make a rational, fact-based argument for how something should read. But, ultimately, I think most corporate marketers are just going to end up unhappy (or at least not fully satisfied) with the way their company or product article reads.

I just say this article on Overstock.com getting booted from further edits because of perceived abuse:

http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/09/wikipedia-bans-overstockcom.html

Wikipedia edits are 100% traceable. Thanks to Virgil Griffin -- see link below for interview with him -- who invented wikiscanner, an online service that uncovers which IP addresses edit listings on wikipedia and then looks up those IP addresses to see who owns them. The service allows you to search in various ways. What you find will make you chuckle, unless they are your employees editing the Wonder Woman wikipedia page while on the clock on your dime.

Uncovering Wikipedia Edits: Virgil Griffith Shines Light on Anonymous Changes to Popular Wiki

http://www.thecontentwrangler.com/people/uncovering_wikipedia_edits_virgil_griffith_shines_light_on_anonymous_change/

Scott Abel
TheContentWrangler.com

Those five steps make sense to me as a means of accomplishing what should be a routine task. It seems to me there is a consensus among the respondents to this blog post of yours, Josh. Perhaps we should support each other and join in wikipedia discussions started by those among us? Strength in numbers, right? Please contact me if interested in this approach.