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.
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 Not only is it a disservice to a client for a firm to boast of its success with such outdated tactics, but it also takes the PR industry back several years in terms of our professionalism and value to businesses.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/
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 |