It may an indicator of how many PR bloggers read PR Week but there's a story on the front page of last week's UK edition [paywalled] claiming that Wikipedia's founder Jim Wales is threatening to ban PR agencies from contributing to the site.
For non-subscribers, Wales tells the trade mag exclusively:
"If it persists they [PR agencies] will be banned ... There's a huge conflict of interest. Contributors cannot be paid for what they are doing."
Wales' comments came after it emerged Microsoft had been paying a blogger to amend its entries and the US firm MyWikiBiz was banned from editing clients entries earlier last year. I posted about the original case here.
It's an interesting debate but I do wonder what is wrong with PR people editing Wikipedia entries providing they adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines. I have edited Wikipedia entries and personally, I would have no qualms about editing entries about clients. If I see something that is wrong or find an entry I can add to I am happy to help. It's nothing malicious or under-hand. Just helpful. Anyone else have strong thoughts on the issue?