Apologies if this has come up before; this is an article from April 2006, published in "Campaigns and Elections" magazine, which describes itself as a magazine for campaign consultants. (http://www.campaignline.com/). I've excerpted the article below, leaving in the important part where he tells campaign managers how to influence Wikipedia, for better or worse. Hmm.

If you have access to the Expanded Academic database, the full text is in there. -- phoebe

------ The Wikipedia dilemma. Michael Cornfield. Campaigns & Elections 27.3 (April 2006): p50(1).

Full Text :COPYRIGHT 2006 Campaigns & Elections, Inc.

"Congressional staffers have tried to airbrush and deface it. The Chinese government has tried to block access to it. Old-line journalists resent it, while new-line journalists rely on it."

"'It'" is Wikipedia, the real-time online encyclopedia with close to one million English-language entries that any Internet user, more or less, can contribute to and edit. Wikipedia is the latest addition to the online campaigning toolbox. While it has been around for five years, its readership has now reached critical mass. According to Alexa.com, it has been the 22nd most visited site on the Web in the last three months." [more introductory materia] .... "It's the composition along with the size of the mass that makes Wikipedia increasingly important for campaigners. People who go to Wikipedia often do so to put themselves in a position to say something knowledgeable to others. In other words, Wikipedia users are opinion leaders." .... [goes on to describe the Wikipedia entry for Mark Kennedy, noting one biased paragraph, where Kennedy is noted as a supporter of the war on Iraq]

"No such biased paragraph (pro or con) appeared on the entry of Kennedy's leading opponent at the moment, DFLer Amy Klobuchar. And no warning box appeared at the top of Kennedy's entry, as may be found at the entry "Minnesota U.S. Senate Election 2006," which advises users that what follows is "likely to contain information of a speculative nature." .... "The paragraph attacking Kennedy is accurate and mild compared with some things that have surfaced on political entries. Some may interpret it as a sign of Wikipedia's liberal media bias. To me, it's a sign that the Kennedy campaign hasn't been as active on Wikipedia as it should be. The Kennedy entry ranked eighth on the Google search return page for his name, by the way.

"The rule of thumb on using Wikipedia as a campaign research tool ought to be that you: get a second source to ascertain the accuracy of what you read. Wikipedia links you to a few sites where you can find that second source, but there are facts which need offline investigation too. Wikipedia does not post original research, and professional campaigners need to conduct that sometimes, especially regarding a client's bio and signature issues.

"The rule of thumb on using Wikipedia to influence the influencers is to: get in early and stay active. Make sure you consult the "talk" and "history" tabs to learn who is in the editorial room for an entry and what they are saying. Insert indexing categories to cross-link crucial entries; every category is a potential portal to additional supporters. (The "What Links Here" link in the "Toolbox" is a good guide to these geographic, demographic, issue-related and other intellectual bridges; there were 40 in-links for Kennedy's entry.) If you detect a flaw in the entry of a client, opponent or key topic, change it. If the change doesn't stick, enter a dispute notice at the top of the entry, follow the prescribed rules for content, and perhaps alert mainstream media gatekeepers in your campaign arena to the fact that you're involved in a Wikipedia dispute.

"The community of self-titled "Wikipedians" really strives for a neutral point of view. They have established a Counter Vandalism Unit. They freeze entries, excise content, expose malefactors and most importantly maintain a public record of what gets said and done on the site. Wikipedia is, over time and with your cooperative input, less susceptible to personal, institutional and monetary biases than just about any other forum in campaignland. It is dull and picayune in places, but a force for moderation, truth and reason in politics."

ADVICE BY MICHAEL CORNFIELD