Wikipedia or Wakipedia?

Over the last few weeks there’s been a range of articles arguing that Wikipedia may be on the way out.

Excellent pieces in the New Scientist and The Guardian have highlighted research carried out by Ed Chi at the Palo Alto Research Center in California which warns that Wikipedia has become less welcoming to new contributors. This has led to a severe drop in the number of articles created - the website peaked in 2006 with 60,000 new articles per month, and since then this figure has declined by about a third.

Perhaps as a reflection of this, Wikipedia’s popularity is falling with recent figures showing that Facebook has overtaken it to become the fourth most visited website in the world - behind Google, Microsoft and Yahoo!

Looking further down the line, Chi goes on to argue that another side effect of the changes at Wikipedia is that the encyclopedia's quality could be severely compromised in the long term.

I'm a huge fan of Wikipedia. As a result I'm genuinely concerned about what may be happening to one of the web's most remarkable resources. So just what is wrong with the current system?

One major problem highlighted by Chi's research is that a culture of super editors is evolving within Wikipedia. As a result it’s becoming harder for occasional editors to contribute to Wikipedia - and instead the system is now heavily weighted in favour of an elite core of editors.

As an example, the research showed that editors who make a single edit a month, have 25 per cent of their changes erased by other editors, a proportion that in 2003 was 10 per cent, forcing Chi to conclude: "This is evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content". 

Connected to this, Wikipedia’s stance on refusing to allow anyone with any affiliation to an organization to post any information about that organization creates a complex dilemma.

On the one hand it makes sense that Wikipedia strives to protect its impartiality. On the other hand it currently applies this rule too strictly. Rather than look at the issue on a case by case basis, Wikipedia’s rules state quite simply that a conflict of interest is a conflict of interest. So even if you do disclose a potential conflict before attempting to publish anything, you will be locked out.

Often an employee would be the most qualified person to post an article on an organization. By automatically shutting the door to this possibility however the best / most factually accurate content could be being cut out automatically for no reason. Of course there are potential issues to be dealt with if you allow this to happen, but surely Wikipedia could deal with these.

Having said this, what’s more concerning with this policy is the fact that it actively encourages astroturfing. If Wikipedia closes the door to people attempting to post information about themselves - even those who openly disclose this information before attempting to publish - then they encourage the idea that the only option is to pretend to be someone else. This is clearly a no win situation for everyone involved.

And so, Wikipedia finds itself in an odd situation. As social media opens up the web in new and exciting ways, this one-time trail-blazer in the world of user generated content is ironically becoming more of a closed society - something that is surely folly. 

Follow the IAB on Twitter

Small businesses may benefit without their own website

Nearly every small business has a website these days, but looking at search results, it’s getting harder and harder for them to compete against large directory type websites. For instance, The Abbeville pub in Clapham is ranked 5th in a pile of directory websites that have pages about it. Not bad, but not amazing either. It’s a situation I fully expect to get worse.

Search isn’t the be all and the end all, and it does look more professional to have a dedicated email address, but I do wonder what the point of their own fairly expensive website is. It seems more beneficial to me for companies like The Abbeville to invest their time and money into perfecting pages on the likes of Timeout, BeerInTheEvening and UrbanSpoon.

As these directory/review sites gain more and more traction with audiences and in search, it will be harder and harder for a small site to compete. So why bother? If these sites bring in customers, make the most of them. The Abbeville could save on web maintenance and won’t have to worry about the complexities of search because the directory sites all employ experts on inflated wages.

Follow the IAB on Twitter

IAB Twitter guidelines for brands - 20 tips for Twitter success

The UK Government recently unveiled its first Twitter strategy document to encourage departments to get tweeting. Weighing in at a hefty 5,382 words it was the equivalent of more than 250 tweets.

In response the IAB has produced some slightly more pithy advice for brands looking to get the best out of Twitter – and we managed to keep the word count down to 307. Have a read, let us know what you think and feel free to add some tips of your own.

Bear in mind that these are just starting points. What we want to do is engage with people using Twitter regularly to learn from their experience and develop the strongest set of guidelines for brands seeking to get the most out of micro-blogging. So why not use the comments facility below to add your own tips (but try and keep each entry under 140 characters).

20 tips for Twitter success

1. STOP! Why use Twitter? Is it because it’s the thing to do or because it will add to your communications?


2. What are your objectives for using Twitter? Be clear on your strategy at every step.


3. Don't get Twitterjacked. A foolhardy consumer may already be talking under your name. Claim your space.


4. Ensure communication is legal, decent, honest and truthful. Follow the CAP Code.


5. Don't over-tweet and overwhelm your audience. The traditional rules of consumer engagement still apply.


6. Allocate appropriate resources. Twitter is not a five minute job.


7. Establish a tone of voice appropriate to your product and audience. This is YOUR brand talking to real people.


8. Think about how you will measure success. Is number of followers enough if they’re not engaged?


9. Be current. Twitter is immediate, so make your updates relevant, topical and insightful.


10. Don't hitch your wagon to popular trending topics. Learn the lessons of Habitat.


11. If you want to drive sales, make it easy. Give customers online vouchers or discount codes.


12. If you have specific products, services or incentives to promote, set up a dedicated Twitter feed.


13. Try to respond to direct messages, especially those from users interested in learning more about you.


14. Ask questions of followers, don’t treat Twitter as just another broadcast vessel. Encourage interaction.


15. Embrace the re-tweet. If you see a post that will interest your audience don't be afraid to re-tweet it.


16. Don't shy away from criticism. Why not contact unhappy tweeters directly and try to resolve issues?


17. Monitor what people are saying about you. Check Tweetdeck and Monniter regularly.


18. Encourage offline interaction. The IAB held a Meet, Tweet and Greet night to get to know our followers.


19. Promote your Twitter feed. Don’t expect people to find you. Advertise the fact that you use Twitter.


20. Always innovate. Whoever you are, 100 followers isn’t enough. Use your imagination to enlist more.

Follow the IAB on Twitter

Resurrect Top of the Pops for web only

A story by the Guardian titled “Faster broadband won't make us watch more TV online, viewers tell survey” appeared on my Twitter feed this morning. I read it, and I have to agree, why would faster broadband alone make you watch more video content? Did people start watching more TV when it switched from analogue to digital?

Fast broadband might make people watch more video online than through a digital or satellite box, but I don’t see why it would necessarily make you want to watch more. A new series of Battlestar Gallactica or Psychoville would make me want to watch more TV however. On-demand video might even make people view less if they can select what they want to watch rather than sit through the end of Songs of Praise waiting for Dragons Den to come on… However, targeting advertising may become more effective as a result because you don’t get crossover of audiences.

To increase viewing time online, online video publishers need to create or fund bespoke online content, something barely done at all but could explain why YouTube, with its unique UGC, commands such a mammoth share of video content viewed online. Online film publishers like LoveFilm and Microsoft’s Xbox 360 movie download service will likely benefit too, because it’s inconvenient to walk all the way to Blockbuster to rent a physical DVD.

So, here’s my suggestion, and I’ll give it to publishers for free: create unique online content to attract unique audiences. Top of the Pops is currently dead and the music industry lives and breathes online these days. Why not resurrect the format for an online audience? In fact, perhaps it would be better for the likes of Endemol or ITN to create its own online only music show because they can advertise around it – but remember, online video ads need to be made for online too!

Show exclusive performances and premiere artist videos on a new music show just for online. Better yet, offer two versions, one full length 30 or 60 minute programme and also offer the performances on their own as clips. Music artists have massive audiences buzzing around online already waiting to pounce on exclusive clips. The production house could seed the programme across multiple publisher sites, reaching massive audiences.

Follow me on Twitter, or the IAB.

Microsoft’s video player will pave the way for video advertising in 2010

Last week Microsoft discussed their plans to launch an updated online video player that will host full length programming as well as their existing library of video content. They join the ranks of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Sky and LoveFilm, among others, who are all building, readying and improving online video services for the future. Yet Microsoft, like YouTube, is in a unique position.

Content

Microsoft isn’t a threat to the traditional broadcasters because it is positioning itself as an aggregator of content. It will house programmes from multiple broadcasters including BBC Worldwide and other production companies to offer programmes like What Not to Wear, Shameless and Peep Show.

This is how video content has always worked on TV; think of this player as a web-based digi-box of sorts. Similar to what YouTube is exploring, Joost already offers and something we’ll be seeing a lot more of in the future. Even newspaper sites like Guardian and Telegraph aggregate ITN and potentially BBC content.

Audience

There are a number of reasons why marketers are getting so excited about this new service but, primarily, it’s all about the consumer. This is the latest project by Ashley Highfield, one of the founders of the BBC iPlayer, the service that is still considered a benchmark on-demand video player. Microsoft’s video player is expected to be as usable as the BBC service.

Secondly, it’s the pure-play online media owners like YouTube and Microsoft that receive the lion’s share of the online video audience (over 70% - comScore), let alone the millions of people that visit their sites for other reasons. This is a major move from a major global media owner. It will undoubtedly gain traction with consumers with the right content.

Advertising

The Microsoft player will be free because it will be funded by advertising. Which formats will be used is yet to be revealed, but we can expect pre/mid/post-rolls and perhaps the use of some newer formats like in-stream overlays and branded skins.

Aggregators of quality content combined with an existing massive audience like Microsoft’s offers all of the branding power of TV with reach and the benefits of online targeting and measurability. Basically, it will become the most powerful way of delivering video ads traditionally reserved for TV because it's essentially all the same thing with extra bells and whistles.

The future

What this all means is that in 2010 consumers will have a variety of incredibly powerful on-demand video players to choose from. While Microsoft won’t be the only one, it will be one of the leaders of this pack.

Once it’s up and running, it will only be a very short matter of time before many of us are all accessing these services on our TV screens. Microsoft could easily make it available through the UK’s 4 million Xbox 360 consoles for instance (they’re doing this with films and Sky already). The mass market will follow extremely quickly.

These services are the living room’s digi-box of the future, not to mention the bedroom, the office and on mobile. For the likes of Microsoft, it’s a massive new market to compete for. If the last 12 months for online video were fast and furious, the next 12 are going into warp speed (sorry for that last sentence).

Follow the IAB on Twitter