Big Oil's Wikipedia cleanup: A brand management experiment out of control
Summary: When BP was accused of improving its environmental record on Wikipedia Jimmy Wales stood by the oil giant's practices on Wikipedia. That's because unchecked image cleanup by Big Oil's
PR reps - with readers none the wiser - is standard operating procedure for the "Internet's encyclopedia."
When BP was accused of having a direct hand in improving its environmental sections on Wikipedia, readers were unaware that nearly half the corporation's page had been written and vetted by the oil giant.
The news broke just as BP obtained an emergency April 5 hearing in its Deepwater Horizon spill trial in New Orleans, to fight what it calls "fictitious claims" for victim compensation. At stake for the oil giant is blame and financial responsibility for the disaster.
Editors on Wikipedia were strongly divided about how BP had been facilitating changes made to its Wikipedia page. CNET reported that BP's press representative "Arturo BP" was not touching BP's page, but instead relied on other editors to make changes. Arturo BP was as a proxy to vet facts for Wikipedia from "experts within the company." BP was quick to say it was not breaking Wikipedia's rules.
Indeed, companies can and do manage their Wikipedia profiles. Wikipedia page management is often viewed as brand management. What's unclear is where the line between corporate brand management, community and fact and fiction lie.
However, the Wikipedia community doesn't see BP's page management as so black or white. Editors fought each other on Wikipedia discussion pages about the nontransparent corporate content; were the rules really being broken while they were technically being followed?
Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales responded by loudly defending BP's actions. Wales fired off blistering statements saying the oil company was behaving exactly according to the way Wikipedia's rules are supposed to work. Wales specifically outlined that BP's use of Wikipedia was exemplary, 'going above and beyond what is required in order to be very clearly in compliance with best practice."
Chevron tried, and Wikipedia failed
The results of BP's "best practice" deserve a close look, along with another big oil company working on Wikipedia: Chevron.
ConocoPhillips and Chevron have had
PR people working on Wikipedia since at least 2009 (working together actually, since Chevron owns Conoco). "ChevronJustinH" - Justin Higgs, Chevron Spokesman and Media Advisor - has deleted his user page, but his record remains and shows a legacy of attempting to act in good faith within Wikipedia's rules - that has gone largely unchecked.
Beginning in February '09 ChevronJustinH clearly identified himself and suggested an edit on the talk page of an article about one of Chevron's refineries.
When no one makes the edit, he does it himself.
Higgs doesn't do very much more until April 2011, when he starts working on the main Chevron article. The pattern is the same; he posts suggestions on the talk page, waits for feedback (sometimes weeks, sometimes days) and then makes the edits to the article.
If there is feedback or indication that anyone is reading ChevronJustinH's suggestions, it is not in the open. This goes on until March 2012, when he posts a message to the "Wikiproject Energy" talkpage, actually asking for help reviewing his suggested edits.
Hello all, Justin from Chevron here.
For a while now, I've been posting to the Chevron Talk page about improving the accuracy of the entry. During this time, I've been a little surprised that I've been the only active user there. I've posted edit requests for nearly a year and hadn't received responses. After time passed and my notes went ignored, I went ahead and addressed minor inaccuracies that were factual in nature.
Given, the recent discussion that's been taking place about how companies interact with Wikipedia, there's a bit more clarity around the escalation process. Thus, I'm putting out a humble plea for COI [Conflict Of Interest] help.
(...) in an effort to further improve the entry, I'm asking for someone (or group of folks) without a COI to adopt this entry and work with me to continue to better the page.
He gets no response.
The next time Justin from Chevron suggests anything he puts his suggested changes on the userspace subpage belonging to ConocoPhillips Digital and Social Media Senior Analyst Sara Orsi (Saraorsi), and again posts a message on the talk page.
After three years of Chervon's
PR lead asking for help, one editor finally responds and fixes up how some of the references are formatted. That same editor, Lexein, engages Higgs in discussion on the talk page about the neutrality of the proposed edits - the discussion has not developed since February 22.
While this is a welcome sign, and Higgs endeavored to act in good faith while getting nowhere pleading Wikipedia editors for help, Chevron's Justin Higgs has been hands-on editing Chevron's Wikipedia Page for nearly three years.
Chevron's Justin was up against a system that had long ceased to serve both Wikipedia article subjects, and Wikipedia readers - who believe the Chevron page is not produced and maintained by Chevron.