Posts Tagged ‘wikipedia’

9th June
2011
written by Dr. Leslie Gaines-Ross

This story in PRWeek UK tickled me. I am not sure why but I found it interesting in a humorous way. PRWeek UK wrote this piece on how an anonymous “reputation cleanser” is fixing up the reputations of senior business leaders on Wikipedia. They have not identified the “fixer” yet but I am sure that he or she will be outed soon. Apparently the Wikipedia entries of Carphone Warehouse co-founder David Ross and others have been cleansed. PRWeek wrote:

An investigation by PRWeek found that a total of 42 changes to various Wikipedia pages were made from the same London IP address between April 2009 and June 2011. In most cases, negative or controversial details were erased from the entries. On other occasions, positive information was added.

A reputation sanitizer is in our midst. Apparently PRWeek UK reached out to this person and they are not available to comment. Will make sure to follow this story to see who the fixer is. This all reminds me of the web site — icorrect.com – that gives people the opportunity to debunk myths and rumors or plain old misinformation about themselves.

3rd April
2011
written by Dr. Leslie Gaines-Ross

 No doubt you have heard about icorrect.com – the web site that sets the record straight about rumors and hearsay. The website says that it  is about protecting ” one’s reputation in cyberspace forever.”

ICorrect was started by the founder of Shanghai Tang, the terrifically classy and expensive department store chain. Since I was recently in China, I certainly did not pass up the opportunity to drop into Shanghai Tang and admire all its beautiful apparel and items. It is known as a luxury lifestyle brand.  Sir David, the founder and businessman, began this web site to help people clear up misinformation that lives permanently on the Internet. Several well-known celebrities and luminaries have taken to clearing their records. Anyone can view the corrections although to post costs $1,000 annually. There are posts from Cherie Blair, Sienna Miller and Michael Cain. I do wonder if they are actually took the trouble to post these corrections but it seems to be the case.

 Here is an example — the accusation followed by the correction.

Accusation: Kate Moss to make her acting debut in Shakespeare’s The Tempest

Kate Moss is taking the acting world by storm – making her stage debut in the Tempest. The supermodel, 36, has landed a minor role as a nymph in an upcoming version of Shakespeare’s play. It follows a series of meetings and phone calls with Kevin Spacey who is overseeing the production as part of the Bridge project at London’s Old Vic. Our spy tells us: “Kate has had several acting lessons and is keen to broaden her…….

Correction from Kevin Spacey, the actor:

We met at a party but never discussed her working at the Old Vic. There isn’t even a role of “Nymph” in The Tempest.

I am curious how many people will actually go this route to publicallydefend themselves. It remains to be seen but it has attracted a fair amount of attention in the media since ICorrect launched.  I was alittle surprised in the About Us section when it read, “So far, the likes of Wikipedia and Google searches consist entirely of hearsays. ICorrect uniquely provides ‘words from the horses mouth’.”  I am not entirely sure that most people would agree that Wikipedia and Google consists predominantly of hearsay nor that the expression about the horse’s mouth fits as an explanation. I do wholeheartedly agree that it is very hard to obliterate myths and rumors.

Definitely worth watching the site as companies, individuals and institutions fight back to protect their good names.

4th January
2009
written by Dr. Leslie Gaines-Ross

Just caught myself intrigued by an article about Wikipedia cofounder Jimmy Wales possibly losing his board seat. It was on gawker.com and not very complimentary (understatement). Then these few sentences about Wikipedia and made me think it really ought to be called repupedia. “Incompetence and infighting are endemic to nonprofits, of course. But Wikipedia’s bureaucracy is distinctly, fearsomely awful. The site, which dictates the online reputation of countless living people and companies, itself operates by rules that are completely incomprehensible, determined by a self-appointed group of volunteer editors who can seldom stop arguing over obscurities to explain their ways to outsiders.” Food for thought about how Wikipedia catalogues all these institutions’ and individuals’ reputations online.