INTERVIEW : Jay Walsh (Wikipedia Head of Communications) MUST READ!

Wikipedia has been accused of many things since the formal launch in 2001 but few would argue its influence (rightly or wrongly) on human knowledge now and in the future.  Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia ever created, in over 240 languages, authored by hundreds of thousands of volunteers.  Currently run by The Wikimedia Foundation (a small non profit based in San Francisco) Wikipedia boasts a miniscule 30 or so staff members when you consider it pulls in more than 350 million views a month (Source: comScore).  It’s about as accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica and handles about 100,000 page requests every second.  That’s a lot of traffic and a lot of interested people yet there is no advertising on any of the 14 million articles (interestingly, English accounts for less than 3.5 million articles) currently created on the site.  Currently ranked as a top-ten site in most country across the globe it’s certainly not going anywhere yet the workings of the beast are pretty unknown.  I spoke with Jay Walsh (Head of Communications) to find out more about their policies and how pros can use the site without damaging their reputations or their clients’.  Follow him on Twitter here.

You must have a
big inbox and footprint out there.  How do you handle the firehose of
information?

I get hundreds and hundreds of emails a day. I follow
about 15 very active, global mailing lists (participants from virtually every
time zone), and swim in instant messages, tweets (or dents), at least four very
big wikis, and more web headlines than I’d like to count. 

I love the idea of inbox zero (
http://inboxzero.com/articles/) so I try to
move messages quickly into a very, very broad swath of folders on my email
client. If I haven’t used a folder in a week, I kill it and combine it with or
make an even larger folder. I joyfully delete things that aren’t actionable or
important info.  I use tweetdeck to follow active conversation about
Wikipedia and Wikimedia and I’m content to know that I miss 90% of all relevant
tweets – it’s just a taste, and that’s okay. I adore Google Reader to confine
my reading and keep track of the blogs and info I need to track. I stay well
out of more conversations than I can get into and try to be high-quality and
useful when I do participate (and work my way out of exchanges quickly).

What
specific tools do you use?

Google reader and Google news, Apple Mail, Tweetdeck, Busycal (as a google calendar client), Adium (an open-source, free Instant messaging client), Keynote, OpenOffice, Dropbox and of course Wikis!

How do
you monitor what is said about Wikipedia (tool you use etc).

I am one part of a big, global group of PR volunteers who
carry out communications work.  Everyone is tracking keywords, through
Google news, twitter, identi.ca (open source microblogging service) and other tools I’m sure I don’t
know about.  We mostly share information through listserv style mailing
lists, but also on open and more private wikis. For news, in English (just one
of a few hundred languages we care about) I rely heavily on Google news hits
for blogs and MSM coverage. I use a very, very active #wikipedia search on
tweetdeck that makes my head hurt, but also gives me great joy.

Are there
specific issues you face that other brands don’t?  If so what and how do you deal
with them?

Wikipedia
is a household name.  It’s hard to find hits (media clips, tweets etc)
that really matter when it’s such an integral part of everyday conversation on
the web, but of course I think that’s a spectacular thing in itself. 

We also have a highly active, vocal, and passionate community of volunteer
stakeholders – about 100,000 active people give or take.  They -made-
Wikipedia.  From all over the world, in hundreds of languages, they
authored over 14 million articles.  They have a right to be vocal, and we
like it when they are.  They are not customers and they are not simply
users – and it’s particularly challenging to both hear and appreciate that many
voices at once, and to reach back and communicate. We’re getting better at it,
but this very unique group deserves even more of our attention and focus.

Explain
the editors system – give numbers, locations procedures etc as they relate to
the PR industry (if that’s possible!!).

That’s a really large question There is a very large
population of editors – over 100K from all over the world.  We have very
broad policies about guidelines: articles must be written from a neutral point
of view, censorship is not acceptable, all facts should be well-cited and
referenced, people should write in an encyclopedic style, and: not everything
is notable, nor should it be on wikipedia.  There are hundreds of other
sub policies therein, but basically our project is fueled by passionate
volunteers who want to build a high-quality encyclopedia.  Anyone can
participate, but you really need to understand how things work before getting
involved.  We’re working on ways to make this easier for everyone.

What is the ultimate goal for Wikipedia and how far are you from reaching it?

Give some
statistics / demographics for people who post/create information on Wikipedia.  

We’re
still working at building this picture.  Remember, we’re a very small
staff of under 35 people working to support a vast volunteer effort.  Typically
though, our volunteer editors are educated, smart folks.  Most often
they’re guys, and in their mid to late 20s. These are people passionate about
building a central repository for all of the world’s knowledge and facts.
 Our volunteers are very focussed on neutrality, facts, and non
censorship.  They probably have a lot in common with dedicated
journalists.

Any
updates coming / planned? What’s next for Wikipedia?

We’re working on a big, 5 year business plan right now.
 A lot is in store, but on top of our list is building a sustainable
technology infrastructure (that means studying how we can scale our system to
meet the next half billion or so people who come on-line).  We also want
to increase volunteer participation for all of our projects around the world,
but especially on Wikipedias in languages with a very high potential for
success – perhaps in places like Brazil (high population of internet users, low
population of current, active volunteers).

Ok, the
big one,  what can and what can’t PR pros update on Wikipedia?

In general PR pros can participate on Wikipedia in any way
they like, but everyone needs to keep in mind that neutral point of view is a
very important and meaningful aspect of editing on our projects.
 Publicists and PR pros are often representing clients, or even their own
firms, and often come to Wikipedia just to edit those relevant articles.
 Wikipedians can tell if you might not have a neutral point of view based
on your actions and your history (every single edit to Wikipedia is visible to
anyone – transparency is very important).  That being said, anyone can add
important, citable facts to Wikipedia without much challenge.  Just be
sure to back up and cite your facts, and ensure that -any- change you make to Wikipedia
is making the article and the project genuinely better.

Top tips?

* Be transparent about who you are

* Create a user account – and make one for one person only.  Don’t crete
user accounts that are broadly named (for example. WidgetsPR).
 Wikipedians edit on behalf of themselves, not entities or groups.

* Get to know how Wikipedia works – contribute in areas that may have no
relevance to your business or your clients.  This shows you’re genuinely
committed to increasing the quality if the project

* Before you edit, ask if someone else in your firm or business already do.
 They could save you a lot of time and advise you on the best way to
proceed

* Make your PR assets available to Wikipedians.  We only use freely
reusable images, so make your press image available under a creative commons
license whenever possible.  Build robust websites for your business or
your clients – provide up to date and high quality information so Wikipedia
articles can have good sources when necessary.  

If pros have an issue with an entry what are they steps they should take to have an effect on
that entry? How should they go about it so as not getting banned etc.

You can click on the ‘discussion’ tab of the article to figure out what other
details are being discussed about the page.  The issue may have already
arisen.  You can also write on the discussion pages to reach out to other
editors who care about the topic.  You can present information, links,
facts etc and not worry about having your visible edits reverted.

A simpler path is to reach out to our volunteer-powered user service system.
 Send your inquiry to
info@wikimedia.org.
 Highlight the issue, the article/link in question and be as precise as
possible in describing the issue.  If you want a fact corrected, make sure
the correct information is available and public.  Has the fact been widely
reported by a media outlet? Can it be found on a corporate website or trusted
blog?  If a Wikipedian can’t cite a fact, it’s hard to change the article.

What do you wish more PR pros/marketing folks knew/did with Wikipedia?

Wikileaks is quite different from Wikipedia in many ways.
 We share the same, open-source software (MediaWiki – or at least we used
to) but the rationale and execution of the projects are different.  I’m
sure Wikipedians respect the nature of open, transparent information that
Wikileaks provides, but you’ll see on Wikipedia that information is always free
and always visible.  I’m also not sure that Wikileaks is a vast, open
platform that anyone can edit. They’re very different.

Give
three tips that you’ve never told anyone else about working with Wikipedia
pages.

* If you
start a page, keep it short (or make it a stub).  No need to write 2000
words in a first submission

* Let the community of volunteers do their work.  Don’t be an impediment
to this great project

* Get to know what’s going on in the history of a page – especially if it’s a
page about you or your business. Every edit and everything that’s happened to
that page since it was created is publicly shared: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_history