Loading ...Consumer generated media is present everywhere we turn. It’s a natural part of our society and a growing part of business practices, especially in advertising. Jimmy Wales, the Founder of Wikipedia, says this trend will only escalate in the future.
Brands used to fear consumer generated content. Jimmy equates this fear to the early days of the Internet when it consisted primarily of negativity on forums and message boards. Since it has now reached a higher level of quality and credibility, companies see the value in using it.
Brands such as Pepsi and Burger King have embraced consumer generated content through advertising and have received a large response from the community. Jimmy believes that any brand can find a way to advertise using CGM, but each brand has to discover how to interact with the consumer in order to be successful.
So, what’s in store for the future of consumer generated content such as Wikipedia? For starters, we should expect to see a lot more of it. Jimmy also predicts we will see other forms of CGM emerging that will offer even more business opportunities. It will be challenging, but success doesn’t usually come without hard work and innovation.
Speaking specifically about Wikipedia, Jimmy also clarifies what Wikipedia actually is and the reasoning behind Wikia Search shutting down.
Pingback: Wikipedia Founder Talks Consumer-Generated Content for Branding - News: Everything-e
Wikipedia is EXACTLY what is wrong with the NET. Do we really need to disseminate more misinformation? Long live plagiarism and mediocrity. Is this the kind of wishy washy maybe kind of information society is really looking for?
Gee Doc I am having a pain in my side. Hey I didn’t actually go to medical school, but I was reading something on Wikipedia that said it might be your kidneys. Thanks Doc.
Excellent.
It’s about as logical as wondering what kind of Cell Phone Jennifer Aniston was talking on after Yoga 3 days ago.
I can’t agree with you more! It’s absolutely absurd that the founder is calling Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Did he even bother to look up what an encyclopedia is? It’s not a bunch of people getting together and saying what they think about a subject.
And another thing, he said this about Wikipedia’s content “It’s just the essential facts…” – what facts? When I add the real facts on a subject that I have a doctorate in I get banned from your site. Sounds more like it’s what you or some other user wants people to hear about a subject.
How does one get the positive information about their on line business in Wikipedia? Also how does one address negative that may appear about appear?
Oscar, you may want to reach out to me. I have extensive experience helping both small/mid-sized and Fortune 500 businesses with their presence on Wikipedia.
How do you ensure the reasonable accuracy of the information?
Another piece of softball journalism, star-struck with the aura of Jimmy Wales.
See my link for the flip side of the story.
Hi Gregory,
How would you define journalism? When I obtained my Broadcast Journalism degree, I was taught that a good journalist should strive to be objective in every report…
Abby, thanks for at least stepping up to the plate and replying to my rather pointy comment. I hope that you *do* strive to be objective in every report. In this report above, I caught a few points that I feel were not objective in their delivery:
00:14 – While talking about traffic statistics for Wikipedia.org, the graphic zooms in on statistics about Wikia.com, a different entity.
00:23 – “sit down with Wikipedia’s *founder*, Jimmy Wales”. Wales was the co-founder of Wikipedia. This is a title that his organization publicized over several press releases, a title that he used to introduce himself to communities unfamiliar with him, and a title shared with the other co-founder, Dr. Larry Sanger. Around about 2004, Wales began a personal campaign to re-write himself as “founder”, even laughably as “sole founder” for a time. He simultaneously has downplayed the role of Dr. Sanger, who actually put in most of the work effort on the early Wikipedia project. It wasn’t even Wales alone paying the bills, but rather his company Bomis, which was co-owned by three people. Even Wikipedia correctly names Wales as “co-founder” of Wikipedia — only Wales seems deluded enough to still insist on being called “founder”, and you supported this delusion by calling him such. If you were doing an interview with Wen Jiabao, would you introduce him as the “premier of Taiwan”?
00:28 – “since many people perceive Wikipedia inaccurately, Jimmy clarifies what his encyclopedia project truly is”. How do you know that the “many people” are wrong, and that Jimmy Wales is telling the truth? Are you aware that Jimmy Wales has been caught on the record many times, telling untruths?
04:10 – Wales goes on a bit of a rant about how Doritos ought not engage in the consumer-generated content space. Yet, the video overlay shows several areas where Doritos is thus engaging. Wouldn’t an objective report counter Wales’ criticism of the Doritos brand with some kind of follow-up question that actually holds him to the fire? Wouldn’t a savvy reporter counter with, “But, Jimmy, a user-generated TV spot created as part of a contest by Doritos was the most popular commercial in USA Today’s 21st Annual Ad Meter poll during the 2009 Super Bowl. How does that square with what you just told me?”
06:05 – Wales says he was “pleased with the progress” of the failed Wikia Search project, but that economic conditions sapped its viability. My experience is that running a user-fed website is actually rather cheap. I run one with over 40,000 user-generated pages, and it costs about $240 a year. An objective reporter may have followed up with a question like, “Approximately how much was the Wikia Search project costing your company, if it was being built mostly by volunteer contributors?” Or, “Are your other Wikia wikis operating in the black, or are they also experiencing this advertising drought you mention?”
Don’t get me wrong. You’re charming, Abby. I’m just disappointed with the online media’s inability to forcefully challenge someone whom many critics (not just me) have concluded is an intellectual con-artist whose biggest financial success is (ironically, considering your venue) speaking tour fees.
Hi Gregory,
From what I gather, you have a personal, business disagreement with Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia and as a result, feel compelled to attack me personally as a journalist because I interviewed him. Your private business, MyWikiBiz, allows users to write their own legacies on the Internet. MyWikiBiz is similar to Wikipedia with the exception that “we [MyWikiBiz] think you [users] are notable, even if Wikipedia has rejected an article about you or your enterprise as being ‘non-notable.’”
WebProNews is a source of information for businesses, not a gossip column. The goal for the interview with Jimmy was to allow him to share his views on consumer generated content and its role in society, especially in the area of advertising. The intention was not to generate controversies regarding Wikipedia. The allegations and disputations you suggested I bring up were not relevant to the discussion. I believe my goal was met, and I look forward to working with Jimmy and Wikipedia in the future.
~Abby
So, you went into the interview with “the intention” not to explore anything controversial, and to allow the guest to share his views, without exploring a balancing point of view. This is the very definition of a report that fails to be objective.
Yet, you “strive to be objective” in every report?
My apologies if my critique comes off as a “personal attack”. It may be that I have simply grown weary of a journalism field that seems sadly unable (or is it merely “unwilling”?) to ask the hard-hitting questions of yore that used to be delivered so eloquently by the likes of Mike Wallace, Barlett and Steele, and Seymour Hersh.
Sounds like the old bromide of the ‘customer is always right.’updated to the 21st century.
I find Wikipedia to be quite useful in a lot of areas. It seems like people are being too hard on Wikipedia and blowing the negative out of proportion which, ironically, is what Wales is saying isn’t happening as much.
I agree with Abby’s approach. When I want industry information of this kind I don’t want to hear a 60 minutes style investigative report. There are plenty of other sites to discuss these types of controversies. You can still write about these controversies in the comments and people can follow up on it if they want to. I did find it interesting to read but I wouldn’t want it in the videos.
I for one was happy with the report that Abby conducted, coming form the UK we perhaps look at these things in a more measured way.
I’m very new to the Net in terms of marketing I have recently started my own company in Education Recruitment sites like Wikipedia allow companies like my self to express ourselves at low cost on the internet.
The interviews Abbey holds are informative and allows the interviewee to have their, this makes a refreshing change from the confrontational aspects seen more and more these days.
Everyone has an opinion just takes what’s good out of it and leave the rest. As to challenging Abbeys credentials how would you really fair interviewing somebody world known? In truth you would probably be up all night worrying, come out all aggressive and make a real ARS@ of yourself.
As for attacking Wikipedia on your own website I find that completely unprofessional and screams of a poor imitation trying to attack its fathers lineage. Keep going Abby you are a star.
I think America has great potential but so many times it has been seen that you attack first then think later, try engaging you brain first do you think. Half of the people Abby interviews wouldn’t even turn up if she savaged them for your delight.
Hi Gregory