PR staff strive for Wikipedia whitewashes

Press offices attempt news management via popular data source

November 21, 2013

Source: Alamy

Positive spin: a number of university pages on Wikipedia have been ‘finessed’ to show institutions in a better light

University press officers have been deleting negative information and finessing critical passages on their institutions’ Wikipedia pages, breaking the online encyclopedia’s guidelines in the process.

The revelations fuel debate over how far universities should go in burnishing their image in an era of higher tuition fees and greater competition for students.

In August, London Metropolitan University’s press office attempted to delete a section about comments made last year by vice-chancellor Malcolm Gillies, who said he was considering an alcohol ban on parts of the campus because conservative Muslim students considered the substance “immoral”.

Using an account called LondonMetropolitanUniversityPR, the press office also tried to remove a section on London Met’s apology to China for giving the Dalai Lama an honorary doctorate in 2008.

The Wikipedia account has since been banned by an administrator for “promotional editing” and representing a group rather than an individual. The deleted sections have been reinstated by other Wikipedia users. Between November 2012 and March this year, anonymous users with IP addresses traceable to London Met’s location tried to delete the section on “alcohol-free zones” on three occasions.

A spokesman for the university admitted that the named account had been used by the press office, but he did not know who was responsible for the anonymous edits.

He added that the press office was no longer editing Wikipedia.

Public relations staff are “very strongly discouraged” by the website’s guidelines from editing Wikipedia entries about their employers. But users with a conflict of interest are permitted to remove “spam and revert unambiguous vandalism”, or correct spelling and grammatical mistakes.

Changes to the University of the Arts London page reveal the editing of passages by its press office in May 2012.

A section outlining staff and course cuts was given a more positive spin, ending: “the university has consolidated and is looking to the future with cautious optimism”.

A spokeswoman for the institution said that the page had been updated “at the request of senior staff, who felt that the information was out of date and in some respects inaccurate”. She added that the user had declared her identity in advance.

In November 2011, the University of Wales press office removed references to the institution’s abolition and a section on a BBC undercover investigation that uncovered alleged visa fraud at a linked college.

A spokeswoman for the university said the edits were in response to “misleading” reports of the institution’s demise.

Conflict of interest ‘in theory’

Academics have also taken to editing the pages of their own universities.

Jonathan Jones, a physics lecturer at the University of Oxford, cut down and removed the title of a section on alleged “institutional racism” on Oxford’s page.

Professor Jones, a prolific editor of the site, acknowledged that as an academic he faced a conflict of interest “in theory”, but argued that modifying pages was not a problem if editors were open about their identities and obeyed Wikipedia’s guidelines. But he added that university press officers had “high conflicts of interest”, so needed to edit “with extreme care”.

“Unfortunately they are also among the least careful and least thoughtful editors around…their usual approach is simply to attempt to delete anything negative, rather than working to find a better sourced, more balanced alternative,” Professor Jones said.

Rebecca Price, partner at branding firm Frank, Bright & Abel, said that while prospective students knew Wikipedia was not always accurate, “it is where people sometimes go to do basic info searching before going elsewhere for richer content”.

But Peter Reader, director of marketing and communications at the University of Portsmouth, said that the online encyclopedia was “not a significant source of information” for potential applicants, for whom university websites were the most important resources.

He added that universities were caught “between a rock and a hard place” when it came to their Wikipedia pages. “On one hand, they want to provide accurate information,” an element strongly stressed by the government, he argued.

“On the other, Wikipedia guidelines can prevent the correction of even factual inaccuracies.”

This is illustrated by a case that may have breached the encyclopedia’s guidelines but was not an apparent attempt at airbrushing. The University of Bristol made 11 biographical edits to the page of Sir Eric Thomas, its vice-chancellor, created a new page for David Clarke, its deputy vice-chancellor, and altered a section on the university’s governance.

David Alder, director of communications and marketing at Bristol, said the edits were “limited to correcting factual inaccuracies”.

david.matthews@tsleducation.com

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Reader's comments (2)

I thought the point of wikipedia is that anyone could edit it with the view to making it as good as possible. That means people who work in universities should edit things. Often that includes editing out the names of people who have added themselves under the 'notable alumni' of universities. Why whould a university PR department be alert to those people? Wikipedia remains in constant tension regarding the presentation of 'facts'. That's a process of negotiation, and you'll see flags against university pages and, in extreme cases, those pages of prominent staff within those universities. There are examples where hagiography has taken over, but that art predates wikipedia...
Mike, The point is not to make it as "good as possible," but to to create an unbiased article that carries the weight of the available sources on the topic. The Wikipedia community has gone afoul by creating so many rules and guidelines that it is often hard to determine the best way to edit any article. This is a reason why current editors are leaving the site and new editors are not joining (or are being chased away after making a few edits). As an example, they ask for experts to edit articles on topics in their field, yet they shun companies for writing about themselves (even if they do it objectively). So, they are asking for doctors to edit medical articles as experts (which means that it will be slanted more towards that person's opinion as they will pull the references needed to support their opinion), yet companies cannot write any information about themselves without being accused of having a conflict of interest. Wouldn't a company be an expert if writing about itself since they have all the inside information? I realize that it can be difficult for some companies to write about themselves objectively, but Wikipedia doesn't even want to see them try.

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Administrative Assistant UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL
Dental Clinical Skills Assistant UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL
Education Liaison Lead UNIVERSITY OF GREENWICH

Most Commented

question marks PhD study

Selecting the right doctorate is crucial for success. Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman share top 10 tips on how to pick a PhD

India, UK, flag

Sir Keith Burnett reflects on what he learned about international students while in India with the UK prime minister

Pencil lying on open diary

Requesting a log of daily activity means that trust between the institution and the scholar has broken down, says Toby Miller

Application for graduate job
Universities producing the most employable graduates have been ranked by companies around the world in the Global University Employability Ranking 2016
Construction workers erecting barriers

Directly linking non-EU recruitment to award levels in teaching assessment has also been under consideration, sources suggest