DISQUS

Glen Allsopp · 2 years ago

Our Search Director is actually an editor, so I'll see if she has any ideas or could start it up herself

Please feel free to email me any info you thought should have been included and I'll see what we can do :)

Lisa McNeill · 2 years ago

Thanks Glen - I emailed your team some ideas. Can't wait to see where this goes!

BrianR · 2 years ago

The experience you describe above is a classic example of ideological differences on the Internet. I get the feeling that the Wikipedia editor who you quoted sees your post as a commercial promotion. It may not be your intention but could serve as such via links to Ignite Social media and other firms. I think we understand the power of linking and its effect on page ranking. Sadly many people misunderstand social media agencies as groups helping corporations exploit user generated content on social networks.

Much of Wikipedia's culture and ideology is based on the GPL license (General Public License), copy left, and public domain. These ideas are inherently allergic to some types of commerce. Especially on a site like Wikipedia that is distinctly not for profit.

Fairly blending the world of the anti-commerce and commerce is a tricky one. Many people rather just keep them separate. But I believe they can work together and keep their individual values intact.

To do this requires a lot of self education. Read the GPL license, participate in projects with these values, give away your time, and get to know folks. Over time you and Ignite can develop a trusted reputation. Example: Try writing wikipedia pages that have nothing to do with your profession. Do that for awhile. Get to know more Wikipedia editors. Building social capital is hard.

Got so much more to say. Hard to get it all written here. See you Wednesday evening. :)

Social Media Montreal · 2 years ago

This reminds me the battle around the Enterprise 2.0 article, please take a look at the business case from andrew mcafee (harvard) on his blog : http://blog.hbs.edu/faculty/amcafee/index.php/f...

maggie fox · 2 years ago

How frustrating, Lisa - and how fascinating that apparently blogs are not a credible source. Would that be all blogs? What about TechCrunch, Scobelizer or Engadget, to name just a few?

I think we should all keep pushing on this one, because we are different from advertising or PR agencies, and that should be recognized.

brian · 2 years ago

but what's the point of having an encyclopedia if it doesn't site the relevant sources?

i'm immediately thinking of Andrew Keen's "Cult of the Amateur" that when someone does not see things the same way as you do, you somehow become "wrong".

Lisa McNeill · 2 years ago

An encyclopedia does need relevant sources, which is why I included and added more sources in the article. However most of my sources were from reputable blogs which weren't considered relevant according to Wikipedia's rules on "relevant sources". I did have a couple magazine articles in there - but so far no books have been written citing a "social media agency"

It my opinion it seems rather limited for Wikipedia to limit itself to site articles which only have been published via traditional press. I do understand the control in creating quality content (which I've relied on Wikipedia for time and again), but at the same time it is sure to limit the inclusion of coverage of newly emerging topics.

However, coming from this all that I would wish is that the article would have been able to have been discussed or debated for longer before its deletion. A discussion and debate would have proven the value of collaboration that Wikipedia offers - critics from both sides would ultimately have improved its quality - but unfortunately there was little room for this before the article was deleted.

brian · 2 years ago

funny how wikipedia being an amalgation of user generated content does not recognise user generated content from relevent sources -) just a thought..

maggie fox · 2 years ago

Wow - that's weird. I was sure I'd left a comment on this thread, but maybe I just planned to? :-)

Anyway, Lisa - very frustrating, but I think you're in the right. Social Media Agencies are a different breed, and should be recognized as such. The fact that the Wikipedia trolls (and I do think some of those editors can accurately be described by the term) don't recognize what's happening in the world of communications simply means they're out of touch.

Glen Allsopp · 2 years ago

I checked back on this because we didn't receive any email

Can you send it again please (Glen@bluesouth.com)

Glen Allsopp · 2 years ago

Ugh Glen @ Viperchill.com sorry (please edit the above comment)

Lisa McNeill · 2 years ago

@ Glen - Okay I resent my message to glen@viperchill - Thanks again!

Jim Tobin · 2 years ago

Maggie, your comment got caught up by Akismet. I just fished it out tonight. Let's storm the Wikipedia castle, pitch forks and torches at the ready.

I suppose we're all learning as we go, but I just expected a more progressive stance on this topic from Wikipedia. It's been a learning experience for me.