The emergence of a new tool that identifies the source of Wikipedia edits is a timely example of the digital footprints we all leave and the embarrassment that can ensue. It also reminds us that the best encyclopedias are repositories of fact, not opinion.

WikiScanner consists of “a publicly searchable database that links anonymous Wikipedia edits to the organisations where those edits apparently originated” (source: Wikipedia). It was created by American hacker, Virgil Griffiths, who told the Associated Press that he set out “to create minor public relations disasters for companies and organizations I dislike.”

Since WikiScanner launched two weeks ago bloggers and journalists have had a field day dissecting various entries, and governments have borne the brunt of bloggers’ vitriol. Staff in the Australian Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet removed potentially damaging details from articles related to the Government. A bit like the character of Winston Smith in George Orwell’s 1984 whose job in the Ministry of Truth was to re-editing back issues of The Times to reflect the party line.

Day by day and almost minute by minute, the past was brought up to date… All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed. People who had incurred the displeasure of the Party simply disappeared and were never heard of again.

- 1984, George Orwell

People who contribute to Wikipedia clearly hold a vested interest in their topic. Many also recognise the good sense in leveraging What Alexa ranks as the world’s ninth favourite website. And while most edits are uncontroversial, WikiScanner is a source of embarrassment for companies and organisations of every colour and flavour. We now know that politicians, broadcasters, religious groups, royal families and big businesses are among Wikipedia’s myriad editors.

It will come as no surprise that PR people are using Wikipedia too.

Public relations professionals care that their company and/or clients are faithfully and factually represented on Wikipedia. It is natural to want to edit a misspelled name or inaccurate historical data. However when there is a temptation to edit-in emotive messages and unquantifiable claims or to replace “the worst” with “the best”, savvy marketers should caution themselves.

Sure, the truth hurts sometimes. Reading a negative statement about you can be tough, especially when it is based on truth and everyone from your boss to your mother to your best customer can access it. Instead we should recognise an opportunity to enter the web2.0 dialogue with netizens who are increasingly sceptical of traditional communications. One way to do this is to add, not subtract. Wikipedia has space for different perspectives on the same page. (Entries relating to movies are a good example of how opposing ideas can give a more rounded Wikipedia page.)

Here are five tips for effectively using Wikipedia:

  1. Transparency: Register for an account under your real name and set-up your profile.
  2. Subscribe: Get notified when others make changes to your entries.
  3. Dialogue: Participate in the “Discussion” for your respective pages. Explain your reasons for including or removing new content and ask other contributors if they mind you adding a new subheading.
  4. Reference: Provide reputable external links. If your company is worth talking about then there’s bound to be countless reference material from media outlets and bloggers.
  5. Facts: Wikipedia is a place where facts are collated; not created.

Wikipedia is a great resource and companies should not feel deterred from using it as an entry point to the world of web2.0.

Footnote: If you have some tips or recommendations for using Wikipedia, please leave a comment below. If you’re being denied access to Wikipedia you can use an anonymous proxy server.

Michael Darragh is Ogilvy PR Worldwide’s digital strategist for Asia Pacific. He has lived in Shanghai for five years and blogs about random urban culture and cool hunting at theNavigator.