Public relations history on Wikipedia

I think we all know that public relations has a rocky relationship with Wikipedia. Although I followed the CREWE (Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement on Facebook) discussions with interest, rather than getting involved in policy, I decided to stick with what I know best: public relations history. All you have to do is look at Wikipedia's brief description of history in the "public relations" entry to know that PR is inadequately described on the site.

I had the good fortune of being assigned to teach an honors section of the introductory public relations course this semester. With just 15 exceptionally bright and mostly hard working students, the class is perfectly set up for entry-level research and writing assignments. So, I had them work in pairs to conduct primary and secondary research on various pioneers in public relations history. They were asked to present this research to the class, and then to create or improve the Wikipedia biographical entry on their individuals.

If I'd imagined writing this blog post at the time I made the assignment, I would've pictured a series of links to the new and improved Wikipedia articles. (In fact, the existing entries on George Creel, Earl Newsom, and Whitaker & Baxter have been improved.) Instead, I present a list of the articles rejected by Wikipedians on the grounds that these individuals do not merit having an individual entry:

• Doris Fleischman -- she is mentioned twice, once for getting married and once for coauthoring a book, in the Bernays entry
• John W. Hill -- founder of the PR agency that was largest in the world for 30+ years. The history section in the PR article shows that his page was deleted before we even started this project. The students couldn't get past the gatekeeper with a finger on the speedy deletion button.
• Jane Stewart -- Wikipedia said that a peer reviewed Public Relations Review article on her was not a credible source... written by yours truly

I'm sure that the students could've done more to sell the importance of Fleischman, Hill and Stewart, but they tried multiple times to submit articles with verifiable references and clear descriptions of each person's contributions to the field, and in the cases of Fleischman and Stewart, to working women. In addition, attempts to edit the Arthur Page entry were apparently rejected, despite the fact that the entry is completely insufficient in my opinion as a historian.

When I ponder the garbage that does appear on Wikipedia, I can't help but think that these entries were rejected more because they're about public relations than because of the merits of the individuals' careers or my students' writing.

On the bright side, 15 undergraduates now clearly understand the limits of Wikipedia as a source of information.

Comments

[Karen Cannon]

Wow... My first thought is "awesome assignment" and my second is "wikipedia needs an attitude adjustment" on this one. On the bright side...for me...this will be an excellent teaching moment for me to use in my very own intro to PR course in the spring (though not an honors course, I can use all the brilliant ideas I can get!). Thanks KMR!

[Karen Russell]

Sending you the assignments in case you want to adapt them for your class. Maybe you'll have better luck with Wikipedia than I did.

[Robert French]

Excellent, Karen! I particularly love the "15 undergraduates now clearly understand the limits of Wikipedia as a source of information." We had similar experiences, with regard to the quality of entries/articles, while doing the Wikipedia Top Corporations Audit. I'd love to see your assignments/exercises, too. It is a great idea for class projects. And, an aside ... this weekend, "Go Dawgs!"

[Karen Russell]

Thanks, Robert. Materials on the way right now.

[Mjkushin]

Very cool assignment!

[Gregory Kohs]

Dr. Russell, I'm the founder of the world's first and longest-running paid Wikipedia editing service, MyWikiBiz (yes, there's a Wikipedia article about it). You wouldn't believe it, but my contributions and expertise made available to the "CREWE" group were rejected when Phil Gomes blocked my access to the group, because Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales entered a bogus report to Gomes that I was physically threatening Wales. It's a convenient way for Wales to censor critics of Wikipedia -- call them "stalkers" and play the victim card to the hilt. If you're wondering why Wikipedia has such a tumultuous relationship with the PR industry, look no further than Wales (who, ironically, just married a PR executive).

Anyway, I thought you might find interesting two of my articles about gender bias on Wikipedia:

http://www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-biographies-favor-men

http://www.examiner.com/article/number-of-women-going-down-on-wikipedia

I am currently working on a review of 100 random Wikipedia articles about businesses, to evaluate both the editor who created each article, and the editor who contributed most to the article (sometimes one and the same person). I'm trying to decipher how many Wikipedia articles about businesses have been launched by, or predominantly edited by, persons with a conflict of interest regarding the subject. Care to take a guess at how the data is stacking up?

[Karen Russell]

At first my class and I thought it was a gender issue, which I still think factored into two of these cases, but when Hill was added to the list we decided it was a PR problem. Either way, it's ridiculous.

[Andrea James]

I have started biographies on the three people you mention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doris_Fleischman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_W._Hill
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Stewart_(executive)

I agree that advertising and PR topics are hard to start, because of the anti-ad stance of the project. My guess is the deletions were due to a failure on the part of you or your students to adhere to policies regarding content. I've asked the editor responsible for deleting Fleischman to reinstate the version they deleted. You are welcome to send me the other bios as they were written so I can review what happened. If you have future problems with deletionists on the project, let me know.

[Karen Russell]

Thanks for your help, Andrea. The class is finished for the semester but I'll try to get the students to upload the completed versions they sent me for grading purposes, since I couldn't access them on Wikipedia.

I understand Wikipedia's anti-ad stance, but these were factual accounts of historical people/events, not promotional efforts by or for an agency or counselor. I specifically told the students that their role was to improve public understanding of history so they should include both positive and negative information as relevant.

I also provided them with links to Wikipedia's pages advising them on appropriate content, form and style. I saw the messages with my own eyes stating that the PR Review article wasn't a credible source and that Fleischman wasn't significant enough to merit an entry. I advised those teams on how to revise their content to provide evidence of the person's significance and of the journal's authenticity as a peer-reviewed, academic source. Nonetheless, the resubmitted entries were deleted.

The whole experience has been eye-opening.

[Andrea James]

If this is the submitted article to which you are referring:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Doris_Fleischman

This is not acceptable under numerous policies. The lede is particularly unacceptable, with no assertion of notability, no vitals, etc. The style is very promotional in tone without providing specific facts, which is a huge red flag to people with no knowledge of a topic. This student did not write this like an encyclopedia article, which is a very dry summary of the key accomplishments of the subject.

The submitted Hill bio is OK in terms of content but needs inline citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/John_Wiley_Hill

The submitted Stewart bio is tough because she is the least notable of the three:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Jane_Stewart_(Public_Relations)

If you would like to assign Wikipedia in the future, we'd love to be more involved in helping. You can visit this page for more on our campus outreach programs:

https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Education_Program

I am sorry that your experience was frustrating, which I consider a failure on the part of Wikipedia, not you and your students. Your intentions were great, and your interactions with the project demonstrate that we aren't communicating policies and guidelines properly. I'm also personally available if I can be of assistance, as I have written a ton of bios on people in advertising and PR.

[Karen Russell]

Again, thanks for your response, Andrea. I know in the Fleischman case the student had to stop work and submitted the entry in hopes it would be saved so she could work on it later, not because she really thought the entry was ready to go. We're finished with class now, so I can't check with the others. But I do know that, particularly on second attempts, the students made a genuine effort to comply with Wikipedia policies.

[Karen Russell]

Andrea -- one other thing. Is there one particular page you can point to that would help people new to writing Wikipedia entries? Maybe I didn't point them to the most appropriate instructions.

[Andrea James]

This is a good overview for first-time users:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Your_first_article

This is a good article generator:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard

If you create a biography in user space with this text:

{{subst:Biography}}

It will generate a decent template you can complete on a subject.

Guidelines regarding biographical notability are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

You can also copy the code of an existing article and replace text as needed.

Citations are very important for all facts, so others can verify them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Cite

Let me know if you have additional questions.

[Megan]

As a long-time Wikipedian, I'd strongly suggest you work with an established editor or two in the future; it will help to make future experiences much less frustrating for you and your students!