The picture painted of South African brands and companies by Wikipedia, the free web-based encyclopedia, is not quite as rosy as investor-relations people would like it to be.

“Vandalism” is defined by Wikipedia as “any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia”. This includes adding obscenities, spam and page blanking, but more seriously, also includes defamation and “unconstructive edits”. To counter this, articles on contentious topics such as Islam have been locked. This means that editing by anonymous or newly registered users is disabled. But comparatively few articles are locked, and most of the encyclopaedia is open to revision by its readers.

“Edit wars” or “revert wars” occur where two or more editors disagree on the changes that should be made to this article. Articles can change rapidly until consensus is reached, the other editors tire of the constant updates or until Wikipedia decides to lock the entry, which is rare.

Most South African companies have only sparse Wikipedia entries. Even these, however, may not always be welcomed by investor-relations specialists. Lonmin’s murky connection to Rhodesian sanctions-busting is gleefully recorded, while Anglo American and AngloGold Ashanti may well be dismayed to discover links to an unflattering Human Rights Watch report.

The SABC is criticised for its perceived biased reporting especially of government officials. All but one of the external links from this article are negative, pointing to news articles with headlines such as “Lies, damn lies and SABC coverage” and “SABC battles the image of being a state mouthpiece”.

Telkom’s entry includes praise from the World Factbook for its infrastructure that is described as the “best developed and most modern in Africa”. But, the article continues, its tariffs “are considered to be high, and the [telecoms] regulator Icasa [is] toothless.” The encyclopaedia claims Communications Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri,has a penchant for falling asleep during meetings and, by her own admission, “only hears about rate changes when her friends tell her”. To add insult to injury, the article links to consumer activist site Hellkom.

Diamond giant De Beers doesn’t escape Wikipedia’s watchful eye either. Information on its price-fixing fine, its former use of prison labour and a somewhat cynical examination of its diamond marketing campaign, including the assertion that it enlisted the British royal family to promote diamonds, is prominently displayed.

Carling Black Label’s entry is largely positive. Wikipedia records that it was a favourite among anti-apartheid activists, with more alcohol than any other beer available on the market. But SABMiller might not be so pleased to learn that its unsuccessful lawsuit against Laugh It Off is also included.

The comprehensive article on South African Airways includes details on the recent hijacking attempt and the Helderberg disaster. Despite recent criticism of the airline, a link to a passenger comments page is largely positive.

And earlier this year, Wikipedia was the vehicle for new rumours that Cyril Ramaphosa may have been considering entering the ANC succession race. “Many people in South Africa view Ramaphosa as the next president of the country. He is seen as an intelligent, well-educated man with the skills necessary to lead the country into cementing its young vibrant democracy,” the offending entry read.

But enforcing the policy is nigh-impossible, due to the volume of articles and edits. So Wikipedia relies on the goodwill of users and the ability of other users to correct creeping errors, in a system that is both its greatest strength and greatest flaw.

One company that has fallen foul of the system is a United States public relations firm, which writes and submits Wikipedia articles on corporates for a fee. The Wikimedia Foundation initially decided that paid-for articles should not be allowed, and blocked the company for 10 days last month before relenting. But the debate around controlling public image through Wikipedia edits continues.

Until then, Wikipedia’s constant updating means that no one can tell how long the entries we’ve described will remain unchanged. Its freshness is a main source of its appeal, and just one vigilant activist for corporate reputations or consumer rights is all it will take.

Wikipedia has more than five million articles in 229 language editions, with more articles being added all the time. Not all of these language editions are active or very large, but 159 language editions have more than 100 articles. The English version, which is the largest, has more than 1,39-million articles.

The Parliament of Canada website refers to Wikipedia’s article on same-sex marriage in the “further reading” list of its Civil Marriage Act.

Science journal Nature compared Wikipedia articles on the natural sciences with the Encyclopaedia Britannica and found that the two had comparable accuracy. Wikipedia averaged four errors per article, while the Encyclopaedia Britannica had three.

This is cache, read story here