Challenging Anonymous editing in WIKI

Using WIKI as an internal communication tool, which is a very innovative idea. (We have talked about this topic in class. Giota also posted an article in her blog). We argued that WIKI, to some extent, could be used as a substitute for traditional group discussion within an organisation, especially when group members have difficulties to gather together by geographical restrictions. Gioda mentioned many alternative ways using WIKI, such as resources, event news, collaborative discussion (Q&A), tracking coverage, schedule, tasks, meeting notes, project status, research results, contacts, team lists, and member profiles.

Here, I want to talk about WIKI with from an alternative perspective. WIKI in its website lists five foundation issues that are considered to be beyond debate. "Neutral point of view as the guiding editorial principle" is on top of the list.

"The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points."

However, the real world isn't that simple and perfect. A young man in the states therefore set up a website called WikiScanner when he heard about Congressmen getting caught for white-wahsing their WIKI pages.

"WikiScanner combines two databases: (1) The list of all IP adresses that have made edits to Wikipedia, and (2) What IP addresses belong to which companies. So with WikiScanner you can type a company name, and it shows you what edits have come from IP addresses owned by that company."

The founder of this site concluded three common kinds of vandalism when people using WIKI nonymouslly:

1. Wholesale removal of entire paragraphs of critical information. (common for both political figures and corporations)
   
2. White-washing -- replacing negative/neutral adjectives with positive adjectives that mean something similar. (common for political figures)
   
3. Adding negative information to a competitor's page. (common for corporations)

So next time if some public relations people are required or even forced to make some unethical change some information on Wiki for your company’s or clients,just remember, you will be traced and be exposed to the public.

BA Terminal 5 chaos, so does BA PR?

A high-tech, hassle free travel experience in Heathrow Terminal 5 turned out to be a nightmare to all the passengers.





Telegraph has already listed the chaos in the list of top PR blunders.



"It was a PR disaster', Telegraph comments, "the airline and airport appeared to be blaming each other for the emerging chaos".


And "according to BA insiders, the airline's press officers working out of the company's Waterside headquarters were not trying to spin their way out of bad news".


"The sad truth is they had as little idea of what was going on at Terminal 5 about a mile away as the passengers who were engulfed in the shambles itself."



Finally, BA's CEO, Willie Walsh appeared on TV to apologize the current mass, who performed far better than his colleague Gareth Kirkwood, the airline's director of operations, who was described as "the original rabbit dazzled by the headlights".


"He read a statement and then scuttled off at some speed, accompanied by his minder, refusing to take any questions".


In this case, BA's website and its online press centre within in play an important role. The link of updated information is on the home page. Passengers are advised to check latest arrivals and departures information before they travel to the airport.


Speaking of its online press centre, however, news are not updated on daily basis. Specific tactics dedicated to the crisis are not well stated to journalist. Therefore, they could not blame journalists for using their own angles to tell stories.