It’s preached to businesses as one of the commandments of keeping your business afloat: transparency. But it’s warning is not heeded and we see things like Enron shrivel to the ground and burn to flames before our eyes.

But there is one organization out there, that I remember my “Axis of Evil” university professors hating, that is stepping up to the plate and taking responsibility for its content: Wikipedia.

I’m a strong believer that public relations is a two-way street that facilitates open communication between a company/organization and its target audience/publics.

The fact that this is not a common practice saddens me for something I see as an essential tool for a company’s healthy longevity.

Eventually, bad news escapes one way or another and in today’s society, especially with the emergence of social media, it will not take long for the tables to turn on those trying to keep it standing on three-legs rather than four.

Friday, May 29, Wikipedia, an online “free encyclopedia anyone can edit,” had finally had enough and, in a landmark decision for the organization, voted 10-0 (with one member abstaining) to ban Scientology from the website.

The Register, who broke the story, cited an interview where a former Scientologist ousted the religion for hiring people to use multiple computers, revved with multiple fake identities to refute any claims made against the Church of Scientology on the Internet. In Layman’s terms, a propaganda machine at its finest.

Two questions to ponder:

• Is the way to really attract followers pushed by participating in the hyperinflation of your brand?
• Does excluding one brand over another lay the groundwork to suffocate freedom of speech in the long haul ahead?

Simply speaking, no.

As in basic economics, hyperinflation can only work for the benefitting parties for so long before the depression hits and the sky shudders, releasing bolts of lightning straight for you.

Thor will not be happy.

While, axing the freedoms of one organization, does cut into the basic principals the Wikimedia Foundation was started on, the reason it works is to hold themselves accountable, and set themselves up, as reliable sources for information.

Furthermore, Wikipedia did not just axe the Church of Scientology. No, they axed the anti-Scientology groups as well.

This means that, as with the President and other articles that can be victims of extreme vandalism, Wikipedia has placed the related articles under lock and key.

Below is the statement made by the Wikipedia arbitration committee:
• 3.0) This longstanding dispute is a struggle between two rival factions: admirers of Scientology and critics of Scientology.
A) Editors from each side have gamed policy to obtain advantage and disputes have spilled over into, for example, articles for deletion, the reliable sources notice board, the conflict of interests notice board, and sometimes the administrators’ notice board.
B) Aggravating factors have been (i) the presence of editors openly editing from Church of Scientology equipment and apparently coordinating their activities; and (ii) the apparent presence of notable critics of Scientology, from several Internet organizations, apparently editing under their own names and citing either their own or each other’s self-published material.
C) Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics, with edits being abruptly reverted without any attempt to incorporate what is good, to maintain their preferred status quo.
D) The worst casualties have been biographies of living people, where attempts have been repeatedly made to slant the article either towards or against the subject, depending on the point of view of the contributing editor.
E) However, this problem is not limited to biographies and many Scientology articles fail to reflect a neutral point of view and instead are either disparaging or complimentary.
F) Neutral editors entering this topic are frequently attacked from both sides and stand little chance of making progress until the key players disengage or are required to disengage.

I am not advocating that your Graduate degree thesis should be written off of what you read in Wikipedia, rather, I am advocating to be a responsible reader, not discounting the information you find on Wikipedia as you might just learn something you didn’t know before.

These “old school” presumptions, that prescribe the Wikimedia project as irresponsible and fluffy, need a serious wakeup call from their sheltered lives in academia.

Do what any rational, thinking human being would do.
Do yourself a favor –
1) view 2) assess 3) decide.

This is what Wikipedia wants you to do and this is the reason the guillotine went straight down on the Church of Scientology.

Do not knock it until you’ve tried it and do not assume that just because you do not understand something, it is not worth understanding or accepting.

Transparency works both ways; inside and outside of the classroom.

Healthy bonds are forged on the premise of “what you see is what you get.” The further we move away from that, the further our society will delve into paranoia and dystopia. It’s really not too difficult to connect one dot with the other.

Well Scientology, it doesn’t look like even Tom Cruise can help you out of this one.

Little Pink Book’s Rule of PR #8:
Aim for transparency.
It is the difference between surviving and success.

Read more:
A&E Documentary on Scientology
Britain’s “The Big Picture” undercover story on Scientology
Link to documentaries, anti-Scientology and alike materials
Disclosure and Transparency in Public Relations
Public Relations and the Strategic Use of Transparency
Public Relations and the Need for Transparency

–

Sasha Muradali runs the ‘Little Pink Book.’ She holds a B.S. in Public Relations and an M.A. in International Administration.

Copyright © 2009 Sasha H. Muradali. All Rights Reserved.