By: Stephanie Block, Guest Blogger

Last week the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit that governs Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia that allows any web user the opportunity to contribute, edit and improve content, announced Wikipedia’s English version will now limit changes to articles on people.

Is this a big deal? Are public relations pros upset or supportive of this decision?

The announcement has sparked quite the debate. So, yours truly has summed up the big debate points just for you!

The Decision: In a few weeks, additional editorial review will be required for articles featuring people. If you edit content, the new featured “flagged revisions” will be activated. An editor, who is a volunteer, must sign-off on any change before it is accepted. Your edit(s) will remain invisible until the change is reviewed and approved. To learn more, the NYTimes.com sums it up quite well.

Pure Failure: ARS Technica’s Nate Anderson recently offered his perspective in “Despite changes, Wikipedia will still “fail in 5 years.” Quoting Anderson:

“Flagged revisions are a sign that Wikipedia is growing up, but it’s also a move away from the original site ethos that allowed anyone in the world to edit any item in any article. That free editability has given way over the years to various limits (including “protection” and “semi-protection” of pages), thanks to repeated high-profile incidents of vandalism and inaccuracy.”

Marshall Kirpatrick, lead writer of ReadWriteWeb, was quoted on CNN.com:

“As things get more and more popular online, some of these [Wikipedia-style] experiments realize they need to temper some of their experimental nature and learn from more traditional forms because they’re just not sustainable,” he said.

“It makes me shed a little tear, too, because presumably it will lead to a slowdown of new content creation, and it does seem like a departure from the essential nature of Wikipedia.”

By adding this extra layer to the editing process, perhaps Wikipedia has moved too far from their initial goals and are on the road to failure.

Progress: And, of course, there are some that view this change as a good thing.

John Abell, New York bureau chief for Wired.com, said to CNN.com, “They’ve [Wikipedia] made a leap here,” he said. “I think it’s a good leap, a necessary leap, a righteous leap. In the history of Wikipedia, this will probably be seen as a pivotal adjustment.”

My Thoughts: I know students that use Wikipedia as a research tool for term papers and communications professions that attempt to tout their product, brand, or message via the online encyclopedia. If Wikipedia is being used in these ways, then I most certainly think for the sake of Wikipedia’s own image and liabilities, they would want their content to be as accurate as possible. But, I also realize Wikipedia is a work in progress. I look at their efforts as an online experiment. Has the experiment spiraled out of control? Is it now being used in ways the Foundation did not intend?

Wikipedia has been positioned, intentionally or not, as a preferred Internet resource. According to NYTimes.com, this site is one of the 10 most popular Websites. Perhaps this type of change is just what our online-dependent society needed to start to seriously question the validity of certain bits and pieces of online information.

I remember researching for papers and having to read the big hardcopy encyclopedias for term paper prep. Now we have to research the research to be sure it is legit and accurate. Will we ever return to the good old days of going to the library, looking through books and not really having to question the validity of information? Are we loosing access to accuracy?

Being in a communications profession, for me it always comes back to the goals. If they have not already done so, I think the Foundation must revise their strategic plan and redefine their mission, vision, values, in order to progress and not fail. And, be transparent with the changes and new outlook.

Sometimes I Wikipedia people I know and subjects I am interested. Yes, I must admit, I even Wikipedia my name on occasion. But, in no way do I qualify as a Wikipedian, so start some chatter and comments. I am anxious to expand my Wikipedia knowledge. For starters, I used Wikipedia as a verb like I do with Google. Do you?

***

Stephanie Block is a media relations specialist at PinnacleCare: Private Health Advisory, in Baltimore, MD. Prior to recently starting a new career in The Charm City, she resided in Arlington, VA and worked at the American Physical Therapy Association, PorterNovelli, and Edelman. Now living in Columbia, MD, in her free time you can find her taking road trips along the East Coast, sipping wine, dreaming about Hawaii, exploring small towns, and shopping at Costco. Feel free to contact her directly at stephanieblock1@hotmail.com.