Just last night, I made moves to edit an online Wiki piece that profiled me in an unfavourable light, (alert PR person that I am). A PR forum had asked for crisis PR contributions to an online Wiki and I duly supplied. Unfortunately for me in the edit process, a highly prejudicial, unconnected and unflattering phrase accidentally appeared next to my name and email address. So I asked the moderator to review and remedy this accident, and he promotly did. So, does this make me a Wiki-manipulating monster? Hardly. From a PR viewpoint, I’m with the Aussie Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, who believes it is entirely legitimate to correct factual inaccuracies that appear in the online arena. After all, if left unchecked or uncorrected, they can unfairly damage reputation. And gues what? There are reputation assasins out there people!!
For the media to paint all Wiki edits as devious or sly is wrong. Same for Wikiscanner the website that traces the digital fingerprints of those who make changes to entries in Wikipedia. What the media and Wikiscanner have in common is the desire to spotlight the appearance of wrongdoing, without looking into whether the edits were justifiable. In my small case, I believe the changes were entirely for the better.