Wiki Tweaks: PR firm takes questionable steps online
December 09, 2011 | Jeromy Lloyd | Comments
Did Bell Pottinger cross a line, or is it just playing by docial media’s still-fuzzy rules?
The U.K.’s PR community is abuzz about an investigative expose from the newspaper The Independent (complete with hidden camera videos). It revealed questionable practices at Bell Pottinger including actively editing Wikipedia entries relating to clients and their interests. The Independent has posted a story saying the firm used multiple Wikipedia accounts to shape articles without disclosing their relationship with clients. Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia’s co-founder, has voiced his displeasure.
The co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales has criticised Bell Pottinger’s “ethical blindness” as the lobbying company admitted altering details of its clients’ reputations online.
Bell Pottinger last night said that its digital team used a number of accounts to edit Wikipedia articles, although it stressed it had never done anything illegal.
Last night, Mr Wales told The Independent: “I am astonished at the ethical blindness of Bell Pottinger’s reaction. That their strongest true response is they didn’t break the law tells a lot about their view of the world, I’m afraid.
“The company committed the cardinal sin of a PR and lobbying company of having their own bad behaviour bring bad headlines to their clients, [and] did so in a fashion that brought no corresponding benefits.
He added: “There are ethical PR companies out there.”
For its part, Bell Pottinger seems to be maintaining that they did nothing wrong… or at least “have never done anything illegal.”
James Thomlinson, head of digital at Bell Pottinger, admitted last night to The Independent: “Biggleswiki is one of a number of accounts that the digital team have used to edit Wikipedia articles. I would like to point out that while we have worked for a number of clients like The Prostate Centre, we have never done anything illegal. We have never added something that is a lie or hasn’t been published elsewhere and we have never tried to ‘astroturf’, ie create fake positive reviews to sell a product. If we have been asked to include things about clients that are untrue we have always said no and pointed to Wikipedia’s strict guidelines.
“We have also ensured that for every change that we have made we have sought the approval of the wider Wikipedia community first.”
Did Bell Pottinger cross a line? Is it offside to have a hand in editing Wikipedia articles anonymously? Does Jimmy Wales have a place in this debate at all?
We want to hear your opinion. The full Independent article appears here along with undercover footage of a meeting between The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and Bell Pottinger staffers, revealing some of how the firm presents its online expertise.
Read, watch, then post your thoughts in our comment section.
Mark Lawson
I think Paul Holmes at The Holmes Report really hits the nail on the head here.
http://blog.holmesreport.com/index.php/pr-management/a-uk-media-sting-raises-ethical-issues/
Sunday, December 11 @ 2:03 pm |
David King
Of course he crossed the line. Wikipedia (and arguably the FTC) require conflict of interest editors to disclose it. They erased encyclopedic content about human rights violations, slandered an environmental activist that was opposting their client and made thousands of edits over 20 accounts that were blatantly inappropriate. They created ficticious identies on some accounts to make themselves look like volunteer contributors.
There are ways to do this ethically. To provide drafts to the community, work collaboratively, disclose your COI, etc. but this is the far other extreme. The most unethical way you could possibly participate on Wikipedia is right here.
As a professional COI Wikipedian it’s very frustrating the marketing field would even think it’s ok to edit a community document anonymously. Our expertise and knowledge on Wikipedia is so shallow, even though it’s been ranked repeatedly as one of the most infleuntial websites on the planet.
There’s a list of their shameful activities here and that’s just a sample.
http://socialfresh.com/bell-pottinger-wikipedia/
The marketing community should know more about ethical editing on Wikipedia.
-David King
David44357@gmail.com
Friday, December 09 @ 10:14 am |
Keith Trivitt
While there are several ethical concerns raised in The Independent story regarding Bell Pottinger’s seemingly questionable use of “dark arts” tactics and astroturfing on behalf of clients, the fact is the further you dig into the story, the more you begin to realize the firm appears to have actively tried to convey the very real need for its potential client to be ethical in its actions, in order to effectively win over various governments and the public. If you listen closely to the video The Independent provides, Bell Pottinger representatives repeatedly tell their guests that to have an impact on the UK government and the public, they must make gradual moves toward transparency in their actions and the need for genuine reform.
Bell Pottinger’s use of “dark arts” tactics in relation to online reputation management on Wikipedia on behalf of clients is perhaps the most egregious of the firm’s claims. That is because the practice of setting up fake blogs or posting fake online reviews on behalf of clients (astroturfing) is illegal under the EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices. In the US, this unethical practice falls under the FTC’s online endorsement guidelines.
It’s not just that these tactics are unethical and potentially illegal. It is also that they are amateur, crude and very often do not work. Not only is it a disservice to a client for a firm to boast of its success with such outdated tactics, but it also takes the PR industry back several years in terms of our professionalism and value to businesses.
Certainly, the PR industry should not look past Bell Pottinger’s use of spurious tactics. PRSA has been forthright in our concern over those tactics when they are exposed (see our commentary here: http://ow.ly/7QP9y and here: http://ow.ly/7QPb4). But if anything good comes of this, it will hopefully be a greater push toward more transparent lobbying practices in the UK and internationally, which we understand both the US and UK governments want realized.
Keith Trivitt
Associate Director
Public Relations Society of America
http://www.prsa.org/
Friday, December 09 @ 9:52 am |