The Majority of Ethical PR Bureaus - Research Paper Example

 What should an Ethical PR agency do if the Information on Wikipedia is Perceived to be Harmful to the Reputation of a Client?' Ethical PR agencies often endeavour to ensure that whatever information is relayed on media is in the interests of their clients. As a result, majority of ethical PR bureaus will undertake measures to guarantee the suitability of information on Wikipedia and other media platforms regarding their clients. However, agencies must exercise cautiousness on whatever course of action they take in an event when the information of Wikipedia is perceived as negative or simply harmful to the interest of their respective clients. Under normal circumstances, there are numerous ways to promote the interests of clients; such methods may include providing favourable information on blogs and social media platforms that not only counter the damaging data on Wikipedia but also creates a good reputation for the clients. Ethical PR organizations ought to embrace credible mechanisms that do not result in conflicts between them and Wikipedia over removal of information from the site (Smith, 2011, 82-85). Furthermore, every PR outfit ought to understand the policies and regulations that govern Wikipedia. Essentially, Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia whose primary purpose is the provision of information regarding several entities and concepts. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a promotional site where reliable and favourable information is availed. On the contrary, the encyclopaedia posts factual and true information about everything regardless of whether it is positive or negative. PR agencies ought to comprehend that negative information in Wikipedia may be detrimental to the interests of their clients but serves the purpose of the encyclopaedia. Avenues of redress exist and PR outfits must seek redress from Wikipedia through the right channels in case they perceive information as harmful to their clients. It is unethical and unacceptable to use undercover means to edit or alter certain information from Wikipedia. Role of Ethical PR Agencies ‘Public Relations Agencies’, as the name suggests are bureaus that work for their clients (companies) to ensure that they maintain a good and favourable reputation in the market. The most important task of the PR outfits is to influence the perception of their clients by the public through the dissemination of positive and promotional information via the media. In cases of negative information linking their clients, the institutions have to counter the bad publicity through measures at their disposal to reduce the possible detriment of such information regarding their clients. Public relations involve a broad array of tasks that mostly concern the management of reputation and public perception. Information is the most significant tool that PR companies use in maintaining a favourable perfection of their clients among the public. The media is a central point of operation whereby PR bureaus make use of the media to guarantee the interest of their customers via the development of favourable communications that praise and promote client companies and their operations. The manipulation of information to suit the intentions and interests of respective client companies forms the central function of PR agencies on a daily basis. There may also be special occasions when client institutions require certain publicity and promotion, which squarely lies on the shoulders of PR outfits. Clients often approach PR companies with certain requirements predominantly about their presentation in the public sphere. For instance, whenever information on Wikipedia is perceived as being harmful to the interests of a client, the client may approach a PR Company requesting it to alter the information to make it favourable. Similarly, clients may complain over the lack of access to Wikipedia or the fact that they do not have Wikipedia pages. During such occasions PR agencies are expected to offer support to their clients by altering the information on the site, seeking redress from Wikipedia or exploiting alternative methods of promotion. As a result, it is possible that most PR agencies are approached by their clients over the content on Wikipedia. On cases where certain agencies have used fake accounts to make alterations to the content of Wikipedia, most were acting under the instructions and requests of their clients who sought to make the information more appealing and promotional. Though PR agencies are primarily tasked with the obligation of advising their clients on the best method of responding to such misrepresentation and not just implement what their clients’ requests. Hence, PR institutions should be guided by ethical standards in their operations and should advise their clients to consider alternative approaches or simply seek clarification from Wikipedia on the nature of information availed. Purposes of Wikipedia Being an online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is committed to the provision of factual information regarding the subjects and concepts relayed on its sites. The encyclopaedia is an open forum for information searching and has a wide following and application across the globe. In fact, Wikipedia is an information breakthrough of its kind because it has provided readers and the general public with an opportunity during which they can contact diverse information by a click of the mouse. Through Wikipedia it is now possible to access real information regarding anything, information that is both reliable and true. The existence of the encyclopaedia has however had its share of conflicts and controversies regarding the perceived damaging nature of information concerning certain entities and corporate organizations. These conflicts have emanated from the fact that Wikipedia does not discriminate information and posts whatever information that is true about companies, firms and organizations. One typical feature with Wikipedia is that it is only intended for informative purposes and therefore doesn’t edit information to make it look presentable. Hence, both positive and negative information can be found on Wikipedia making the reader to access real facts about subjects, topics and outfits. The judgment on the suitability and unsuitability of information is often left at the discretion of the reader. As Bateman et al (2010, p2) affirms Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it is a collection of factual information on anything as per the search of the user. He further notes that Wikipedia has no interests in the information posted on its sites because it doesn’t endeavour to build or damage the reputation of any entity covered on its site. Moreover, since the site is created for informational purposes, it is obvious that information found on its sites could be positive or negative but this is never the intention of Wikipedia. Among the rules that administer Wikipedia is that information posted should represent the true nature of the entity or subject and no manipulation should be made to make the information appear good or bad. Hence, whether information is positive or negative, it is not the business of Wikipedia, the company only seeks to present whatever information regards the subject. Ethical considerations at Wikipedia regard the endeavour to offer credible information that has not been altered whatsoever regarding the subject. As a result, it is improper to cite the availability of harmful information on Wikipedia as unethical because information is presented as it is. In general, Wikipedia can be described as a level playing field where all information that pertains to the title covered is presented truthfully without any alteration either to make it good or bad. Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding is that most clients do not understand the essential purposes of Wikipedia and could mistake the encyclopaedia for negative publicity. On the other hand, majority of public relations institutions have not yet understood the rules governing Wikipedia and how information is selected, entered and altered. Rules of Wikipedia Wikipedia is governed by certain rules that prescribe the manner in which information is posted and who should do the posting. These regulations are distinctively developed to guard the authenticity, reliability and truthfulness of the information presented on Wikipedia (Burton & Arnaud, 2011, 1920). According to the company, information on any entity can be posted by anyone excluding the particular entity and its staff. Therefore, a company seeking to have its information on Wikipedia or intending to develop a Wikipedia page cannot do it on its own because it is against the rules governing Wikipedia. The main reason behind the rule restricting posts and who can make them on Wikipedia is to prevent the encyclopaedia from being used as a promotional avenue for companies through which biased information is presented. As a result, any PR agency that receives requests from its clients regarding the development or editing of a Wikipedia page should resists on the position laws of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it is inherently unethical to edit information on Wikipedia particularly when such editing is done using undercover means, done to misrepresent information and for proportional reasons. PR companies should observe strict ethical considerations when dealing with customer requests regarding information on Wikipedia. For instance, cases reported have indicated that some PR companies have used fake accounts to edit Wikipedia information to favour their clients. Such a move is considered unacceptable on numerous grounds; first it is against the rules of the encyclopaedia to edit information, also the use of fake accounts is a legal offence and last and most important is that Wikipedia should be perceived as a source of information and not a promotional avenue. Wikipedia is also administered by a rule stating that all information presented on its pages should be factual, true and non-promotional (Parsons &Parsons, 2008, 56). This is a central pillar of the online encyclopaedia that is aimed at avoiding any conflict of interest regarding information on Wikipedia. Information that is relayed on Wikipedia is perceived as representing the inherent reality of the subject in question, which does not aim to favour or hurt its interests altogether. In case the information is found harmful then it is for the reason that it is objective and that it has been relayed in factual manner. So it is obvious that some kind of information more particularly regarding commercial entities of Wikipedia maybe harmful to its interest. However, such a situation is natural and not intended by the encyclopaedia whose main aim is to present information as it is. Ethical PR agencies ought to fully understand the operation of Wikipedia so as not to misunderstand the nature of information that is availed on Wikipedia pages. Perhaps what transpires in most ethical PR agencies is mostly driven by the ignorance on the dynamic factors that drive Wikipedia as well as its ethical standards. In essence, PR companies can advise their clients to make use of alternative avenues of countering what is perceived as negative publicity on Wikipedia. Furthermore, PR bureaus ought to enlighten their clients on the purposes, objectives and rules of Wikipedia to make them understand that the encyclopaedia has no ulterior motives in publishing truthful information. Similarly, ethical PR outfits must desist from activities that maybe immoral in response to their clients’ complaints regarding Wikipedia. It is not expected from these agencies to edit or make changes on published information on Wikipedia when it is explicitly clear that it is unacceptable. PR companies must ensure that their clients are aware of several other approaches of promotion and publicity that may include blogs, advertisements, social media among others and such avenues are appropriate in the sense that a company can portray information in a manipulative and promotional manner to improve its public image. Wikipedia on the other hand should be left to conduct its affairs without conflicts from such clients. Negative Information on Wikipedia Negative information on Wikipedia derives certain reactions from entities and companies which may approach PR agencies with requests of taking action against perceived negative publicity (National Archives & Wikipedia, 2011, 368). Since Wikipedia is not a promotional platform, information regarding several subjects and entities is often presented as it is; whether negative or positive. Wikipedia normally does not consider such information as negative publicity owing to the fact that the encyclopaedia is only meant to provide information to users. Information on Wikipedia could be harmful to the interests and reputation of a company and therefore it is justifiable when companies become apprehensive over what kind of information regarding them is posted on Wikipedia. Every client often intends to have a positive image in the public domain, which is crucial for the achievement of their purpose. Any information whether true or false that presents a company in bad light is a huge source of anxiety. This is the main reason why client companies often approach PR agencies seeking assistance regarding the availability of harmful information on Wikipedia. On certain occasions, a company or entity may feel misrepresented on Wikipedia and may find such an action either unethical or detrimental to its image and subsequent interest. Such a company may thus be justified to protest the information on Wikipedia on the stated grounds. However, in spite of the perceived violation of its rights, a company or entity does not derive the right to tamper with information on Wikipedia because this may be perceived as fraud or unethical practice. Basically, negative information that is factual ought to be presented especially on information sites like Wikipedia. Whether such innovation is detrimental to the specific company or not is immaterial. The most important consideration is reliability, truthfulness and factuality. In cases where a company has suitable grounds to judge the information as incorrect or malicious, there are well established protocols through which it can seek redress. Any entity that feels the information should not be posted on Wikipedia can approach Wikipedia perhaps through the relevant PR bureau and presents its complaints and grievances for redress. This is the best way of responding to perceived bad publicity by the online encyclopaedia. Subsequently, legal mechanism can be initiated in case the entity has grounds to protest information published on Wikipedia. Ethical Approach to Wikipedia Issues Ethical approach to Wikipedia regarding issues of negative information and misrepresentation involves seeking redress from Wikipedia along with initiating legal proceedings if there are sufficient grounds to sustain it. Basically, there may be several issues emanating from the online encyclopaedia’s coverage of subjects and entitles on the web, which may lead to misrepresentation or image damage of respective entities. As a result, issues that concern the nature of information on Wikipedia cannot be wished a way because companies have a right to redress in case their rights are violated. In the same vein, PR companies should be at the forefront in advising their clients on the best ways of approaching misunderstanding with Wikipedia concerning information relayed on it. Therefore, any entity that perceives information on Wikipedia should consider the steps available for redress and focus on getting a favourable hearing. Ethical PR entities should foster moral standards in their approach to dealing with complaints and requests from clients who feel dissatisfied with the presentation of information on Wikipedia, it is unethical for PR bureaus to create fake accounts and use them to edit Wikipedia pages so as to suit the requirements of their clients (Protus & Natalie, 2011, 311). This is unacceptable and should not be expected among PR agencies, which ought to be custodians of ethical and moral standards. On the contrary, ethical PR companies should counsel their clients on the moral standards that govern publishing and provide alternative avenues for countering perceived unfavourable information. The existence of several avenues for publicity and promotion should be enough to deter ethical PR companies from indulging in unethical activities involving editing information on Wikipedia. Ethical PR outfits should advise their clients to use promotional avenues available in the vast media and most specifically the interest to present favourable information, which could counter the negative information on Wikipedia as well as generate a constructive representation of the company among the public. Blogs are very reliable avenues for promotion where a company conveys positive information regarding its activities and image. Social media like twitter can be another important avenue of countering bad publicity resulting from Wikipedia coverage. By all means PR agencies ought to prevail in pursuing the right channels of approach in dealing with negative information that arise from Wikipedia. This may be through seeking redress or simply countering the information through reliable platforms. In conclusion, ethical PR agencies should desist from using unethical methods in dealing with their clients perceived negative information on Wikipedia because they are required to uphold high moral and ethical standards. Instead, the agencies should endeavour to recommend credible redress mechanism whenever their clients have substantial grounds to prove misrepresentation on Wikipedia. Above all, clients should resort to alternative media platforms where favourable and promotional information can be presented for purposes of creating a positive image among the public. Generally, to prevent the advent of unnecessary controversies and conflicts concerning Wikipedia and its information, it is necessary for all agencies and their clients to fully understand the purpose of Wikipedia along with its rules which administer the posting of information. This will be a big step in the right direction because clients will understand that Wikipedia does not have any interest in whatever is posted on its pages and that it is against Wikipedia’s rules to alter content on web pages. Bibliography Bateman et al., 2010. Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. PLoS Computational Biology, 6 (9)1-3. Burton, S., & Arnaud, G., 2011. Web 2.0 According to Wikipedia: Capturing an Organizing Vision. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 62 (10) 1916-1932. National Archives & Wikipedia. 2011. On the Growing Relationship Between the National Archives and Wikipedia. Vital Speeches of the Day, 77(10) 367-369. Parsons, P., & Parsons, P., 2008. Ethics in Public Relations: A Guide to Best Practice. Washington: Kogan Page Publishers, 2008. Protus, M., & Natalie, K., 2011. Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information In Wikipedia: An Assessment. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 99 (4) 310-313. Smith, R., 2011. Strategic Planning for Public Relations. Washington: Taylor & Francis, 2011 Read More