The picture painted of South African brands and companies by Wikipedia, the free web-based encyclopedia, is not quite as rosy as investor-relations people would like it to be.
Wikipedia is now among the web’s top-20 most visited sites, according to web-traffic researcher Alexa, and its articles regularly rank in the first page of Google search results. Anyone can edit a Wikipedia article, and registered users can create new articles. Some articles are protected from editing because of vandalism or “revert wars” where editors disagree on proposed changes. (A wiki is a website that anyone can edit, thanks to open-source software.)
“Vandalism” is defined by Wikipedia as “any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia”. This includes adding obscenities, spam and page blanking, but more seriously, also includes defamation and “unconstructive edits”. To counter this, articles on contentious topics such as Islam have been locked. This means that editing by anonymous or newly registered users is disabled. But comparatively few articles are locked, and most of the encyclopaedia is open to revision by its readers.
“Edit wars” or “revert wars” occur where two or more editors disagree on the changes that should be made to this article. Articles can change rapidly until consensus is reached, the other editors tire of the constant updates or until Wikipedia decides to lock the entry, which is rare.
The casual reader would learn, for example, that Ster-Kinekor charges “extreme prices on food and drink bought from its cinema outlets” and that until recently it had “the slowest loading website in Africa”. (The website apparently took more than 20 minutes to load on a broadband connection, but is now much faster.)
Most South African companies have only sparse Wikipedia entries. Even these, however, may not always be welcomed by investor-relations specialists. Lonmin’s murky connection to Rhodesian sanctions-busting is gleefully recorded, while Anglo American and AngloGold Ashanti may well be dismayed to discover links to an unflattering Human Rights Watch report.
The SABC is criticised for its perceived biased reporting especially of government officials. All but one of the external links from this article are negative, pointing to news articles with headlines such as “Lies, damn lies and SABC coverage” and “SABC battles the image of being a state mouthpiece”.
Telkom’s entry includes praise from the World Factbook for its infrastructure that is described as the “best developed and most modern in Africa”. But, the article continues, its tariffs “are considered to be high, and the [telecoms] regulator Icasa [is] toothless.” The encyclopaedia claims Communications Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri,has a penchant for falling asleep during meetings and, by her own admission, “only hears about rate changes when her friends tell her”. To add insult to injury, the article links to consumer activist site Hellkom.
Diamond giant De Beers doesn’t escape Wikipedia’s watchful eye either. Information on its price-fixing fine, its former use of prison labour and a somewhat cynical examination of its diamond marketing campaign, including the assertion that it enlisted the British royal family to promote diamonds, is prominently displayed.
Carling Black Label’s entry is largely positive. Wikipedia records that it was a favourite among anti-apartheid activists, with more alcohol than any other beer available on the market. But SABMiller might not be so pleased to learn that its unsuccessful lawsuit against Laugh It Off is also included.
The comprehensive article on South African Airways includes details on the recent hijacking attempt and the Helderberg disaster. Despite recent criticism of the airline, a link to a passenger comments page is largely positive.
Even an apparently neutral article on tiny Newcastle, KwaZulu-Natal, can’t steer clear of politics. It records that “most of the town’s dentists have gone overseas to earn better money” and criticises Cuban doctors.
And earlier this year, Wikipedia was the vehicle for new rumours that Cyril Ramaphosa may have been considering entering the ANC succession race. “Many people in South Africa view Ramaphosa as the next president of the country. He is seen as an intelligent, well-educated man with the skills necessary to lead the country into cementing its young vibrant democracy,” the offending entry read.
This type of bias runs contrary to Wikipedia’s own policy, which says that “articles must be written from a neutral point of view, presenting all noteworthy perspective on an issue along with the evidence supporting them … Wikipedia articles do not attempt to determine an objective truth on their subjects, but rather to describe them impartially from all significant viewpoints.”
But enforcing the policy is nigh-impossible, due to the volume of articles and edits. So Wikipedia relies on the goodwill of users and the ability of other users to correct creeping errors, in a system that is both its greatest strength and greatest flaw.
One company that has fallen foul of the system is a United States public relations firm, which writes and submits Wikipedia articles on corporates for a fee. The Wikimedia Foundation initially decided that paid-for articles should not be allowed, and blocked the company for 10 days last month before relenting. But the debate around controlling public image through Wikipedia edits continues.
Until then, Wikipedia’s constant updating means that no one can tell how long the entries we’ve described will remain unchanged. Its freshness is a main source of its appeal, and just one vigilant activist for corporate reputations or consumer rights is all it will take.
Wikipedians’ world view
- A Google search for Wikipedia brings up 321-million entries.
- Wikipedia has more than five million articles in 229 language editions, with more articles being added all the time. Not all of these language editions are active or very large, but 159 language editions have more than 100 articles. The English version, which is the largest, has more than 1,39-million articles.
- Wikipedia users call themselves Wikipedians.
- According to the encyclopaedia, Wikipedia was once used in a United States court case.
- The Parliament of Canada website refers to Wikipedia’s article on same-sex marriage in the “further reading” list of its Civil Marriage Act.
- Science journal Nature compared Wikipedia articles on the natural sciences with the Encyclopaedia Britannica and found that the two had comparable accuracy. Wikipedia averaged four errors per article, while the Encyclopaedia Britannica had three.
- Jimmy Wales, one of Wikipedia’s co-founders and the head of the Wikimedia Foundation, has been criticised for editing his own profile, a practice Wikipedia, and Wales himself, discourages. Earlier this year, Time magazine named Wales one of its 100 most influential people.