It's A Wiki World

Campaigners and Wikipedia don’t mix well—except when they do

Few websites present as many potential opportunities and pitfalls to the campaign professional as Wikipedia. Whether a Wikipedia article is friendly or unfriendly toward a candidate, it is going to be highly ranked on Google. But Wikipedia is unique among other influential websites because its content is not under one person’s control: Anyone can—and will—try to change what a given article says.

Wikipedia is something of a paradox: its content appears authoritative and is often very useful, but it can also be inaccurate or distorted.

If you’re a campaign consultant and you’re not following your client’s Wikipedia entry, you’re not doing your job. But if you attempt to edit Wikipedia and create a bigger problem than formerly existed, that’s not doing your job, either. Strictly speaking, campaigns are not supposed to edit their own Wikipedia article. Of course, it would be foolhardy to think that a campaign won’t try if they think they can get away with it.

In this way, the interests of Wikipedia and a campaign are almost invariably at odds. Campaign communications seek to highlight positive information and marginalize negative information. Wikipedia, however, considers its mission to provide an accurate representation of the facts as reported by trusted news sources. Likewise, the most effective campaign communications work happens in the shadows, whereas Wikipedia asks that its contributors disclose their conflicts of interest.

Anyone with a vested interest in a given article—especially a financial interest—is asked to avoid editing that Wikipedia page. This is not a blanket ban, but it is an advisory to understand exactly what they are doing and to be certain that an unaffiliated Wikipedian would find their edits constructive. Unless you have an experienced Wikipedia editor on staff, this is probably not you.

One supposed solution is for campaigns to engage a volunteer to make edits on their behalf. This is almost certainly what happened in August 2008 when someone going by the name YoungTrigg overhauled Sarah Palin’s Wikipedia article just days before she was named John McCain’s running mate. This case was problematic because the editor chose a conspicuous moniker—Trigg is the former Alaska governor’s son—and edited Palin’s article exclusively. The edits very quickly prompted a slew of unwanted media attention. While YoungTrigg clearly knew his or her way around Wikipedia, one is still supposed to declare their interest before making edits.

We’re back to the same conundrum: How does a candidate or campaign improve Wikipedia entries while working within Wikipedia’s rules?

To some extent, the opposing interests can be reconciled—although it requires the campaign to think differently about its engagement on Wikipedia compared to other online channels of communication. There is a great deal which political campaigns can do to improve their Wikipedia articles while staying within the bounds of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. But remember, as a collaborative effort there is no guarantee Wikipedia will say exactly what you like, and that may dissuade some campaign professionals from engaging except on the sly.

Ignoring Wikipedia could be a wasted opportunity for campaigns. Only a candidate’s official website and local news coverage are as important as Wikipedia in determining his or her reputation, and information from those other websites often finds its way to Wikipedia.

The Risks
For all of Wikipedia’s self-proclaimed openness, it often feels opaque to outsiders. Its rules are arcane, difficult to find if you don’t know where they are and time-consuming to read once you have found them. Then you still have the community itself to contend with. Many editors act in good faith and want to make Wikipedia a better information resource, but others have personal and political axes to grind.

Here is one recent case which is unusual only because it made its way into the news: In June 2009, an anonymous Wikipedia editor (most are) made a single edit to the Wikipedia article of Karen Handel, former Secretary of State of Georgia and current Republican candidate for governor. This editor, one RomneyGingrich12, made a subtle edit—not identifiably vandalism—which falsified Handel’s education history to make her appear less accomplished than she was.

More than 1,000 people visited the article in the 20 days before the incorrect change came to light, which only happened because Washington handicapper Stu Rothenberg cited the “fact” in a column (putting to rest any notions that smart people don’t trust Wikipedia to tell them the truth). Scrutiny quickly fell upon the account in question, one RomneyGingrich12, who had curiously made edits favorable to Handel’s chief rival, Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine. By the time the story hit the local news, she was forced to say: “For the record, yes, I have a high school diploma.” Ouch.

The entry was quickly changed, but the damage was done. Accusations were made, although not by Handel, that the anonymous Wikipedia editor was affiliated with Oxendine’s campaign. While it’s entirely possible there was no coordination, we’ll never know. Just like that, RomneyGingrich12 disappeared, never to be heard from again.

Unfortunately for Handel, her Wikipedia article has not yet recovered from the incident. As of early 2010, there are warning tags across the top of the page warning readers that the article’s “neutrality” is to be doubted, and a section titled “Edits to Wikipedia Page” recounts part of the story above. Oxendine’s page, meanwhile is in far better shape, detailing both his political biography as well as the platform on which he is running. The entry is a bit too enamored with Oxendine but it is far more informative.

There are a number of lessons that can be drawn from this because it created situations that would make a conscientious Wikipedia editor uncomfortable. First, if we assume that RomneyGingrich was out to score points for Oxendine, he or she made a mistake in editing both Handel and Oxendine’s pages from the same account, thereby tying those edits together. Another mistake was that RomneyGingrich12’s edits to Oxendine’s page were so transparently self-serving that they too drew attention from skeptical Wikipedia editors.

How To Engage
To be clear, there is never a place for adding false information to Wikipedia; campaigns that do it are playing with fire. But there are ways to engage Wikipedia safely and even openly.

Even in Karen Handel’s case, there are numerous chances to work constructively. For one thing, the sidebar “Infobox” has no image of her. As a former officeholder, Handel’s official government headshot is in the public domain and therefore appropriate for adding here. One probably exists: based on the exposed code (“File:KarenHandel.gif ”) the image is likely still there, it just needs to be formatted. Throughout the page are familiar “[Citation needed]” tags in-line with text; these are annoying when the material in question is true, but they are there for your protection. Handel’s staff should be able to locate these sources, and this one they could do themselves. Although Oxendine’s article is a bit over-written, they should look to emulate certain aspects, especially the list of political positions. Lastly, that section about Wikipedia edits to her page simply does not belong there: in most cases, Wikipedia prefers to avoid self-referentiality, and in this case it has nothing to do with Handel’s career in office.

(If it hasn’t happened by the time this article comes out, I might just do it myself. After all, there’s no use complaining about bad Wikipedia articles: everyone has the power to fix them, provided they know the rules.)

There is a place for campaigns to suggest such edits called the ‘Discussion’ page or the ‘Talk’ page—Wikipedia confusingly labels it both, in different circumstances. Here anyone is invited to make suggestions about what should or should not be included in an article. Every encyclopedia article you see on Wikipedia has an associated ‘Talk’ page, accessible via a tab at the top of every page labeled ‘Discussion.’ This is where arguments over the content of articles are supposed to occur and where consensus among editors is formed.

Does the article have a good photograph of your candidate? If not, on the ‘Talk’ page an editor can explain to you the (fairly complicated) process of getting a photograph approved and posted. Is the article missing significant chunks of your candidate’s biography? Some of this may be filled in with campaign literature, but most of it should come from news reporting that you can make available. Don’t think a particular criticism of your candidate’s record should be included? Perhaps the wording can be more fair, or maybe it’s a scurrilous charge. Either way, be prepared to make the case on the ‘Talk’ page but also be prepared for occasional disappointment.

Who should handle this? Why not make a communications staffer or trusted consultant your representative on the Wikipedia article? You probably already have someone running blog outreach, so why not charge him or her with studying Wikipedia’s rules and present a plan for Wikipedia engagement? Have the staffer create a list of things to change, explanations for why these changes are consistent with Wikipedia guidelines and include citation information for the sources you need to back up claims that are likely to be contested (and because we’re talking about politics, almost anything will probably be contested).

Some Wikipedia articles are watched more than others. You might post a comment on the ‘Talk’ page of a less prominent entry only to find that no one has been on the page in months, and there is no indication that anyone will stop by to help anytime soon. The best thing to do is find Wikipedia’s Help desk (just Google it) and ask for someone to review your proposed changes and comment on the ‘Talk’ page of that article. If this doesn’t work, give it a few hours and try again. People on the Help Desk are busy, but they are also among the friendliest Wikipedians you’ll find. No question is dumb; they talk to people who know nothing about Wikipedia every single day.

In a way, Wikipedians are a new constituency to be reckoned with. They probably don’t live in your district and they might not vote for you anyway, but they do exercise a great deal of control over what voters, donors and volunteers do know about your campaign. If they agree with your suggestion, they may implement it directly. If they merely give you a thumbs-up then you can—wait for it—make the edits directly.

That’s right—despite Wikipedia’s strong warnings to avoid making direct edits to your own Wikipedia article, there are a few well-defined circumstances where this is acceptable. Suggestions with ‘Talk’ page consensus is one. Adding citations to verify present material is another. Fixes to grammar and spelling are likewise patently uncontroversial; so don’t hesitate to make those changes.

This next one may be more surprising. Although the surest path to Wikipedia trouble is outright deletion of material you do not like, there are times when Wikipedia does allow it. For instance, Wikipedia is very cautious about how it portrays information concerning living persons. So information which has no source attached to it, or a poor-quality source (such as most blogs or group sites without a formal editorial structure) can be removed. Explain you are doing it for this reason, and you’ll be all right.

If the material was untrue anyway, you have not only saved your own client from misinformation but Wikipedia as well. However, if the underlying story is true and has been reported in a reputable publication, then someone will probably add it back, maybe this time with the better source. You may be admonished in any case, so be careful.

Note also that you should make just one person the public face of your efforts at a time. Because Wikipedia runs on consensus, site policies expressly forbid creating multiple accounts (“sock puppets”) to manufacture consensus as well as recruiting your buddies to join the conversation (“meat puppets”) to echo your argument.

Living In The Wiki World
In the end, there is no substitute for understanding how Wikipedia works.

Wikipedia is now the most important research website in the entire world. It covers more subjects than “Britannica” ever could and, to the displeasure of many (especially Britannica’s editors), in just a few years Wikipedia may be the only active encyclopedia left. Wikipedia itself says that it should only be a starting point for research, but everyone knows—and Stu Rothenberg can personally attest—that more often than not, it’s the endpoint. In less than a decade of existence, Wikipedia has become the principal repository of information in the public consciousness. If it’s not there, most people probably don’t know about it.

The short history of politicians trying to influence their Wikipedia articles is one mainly of defeat. But it does not have to be, and smart campaigns will learn that if they don’t expect absolute control, they can have a big impact on how they are treated. This information imbalance can be your advantage. Use it scrupulously, or it might end up on your Wikipedia article.

William Beutler is the author of The Wikipedian, a blog helping non-insiders navigate Wikipedia. He is also the innovation manager at New Media Strategies.