In the last two weeks, I’ve probably talked more about the how-tos and best practices of Wikipedia than all other discussions combined since Wikipedia’s launch. It’s good though – we need to be having the discussions to ensure our clients and the Wikipedia resource stay true to themselves and don’t step on each other’s toes.

I was interviewed for a MarketingSherpa.com article, and the resulting article (not necessarily because of my input) was fantastic. They cover both creating and monitoring your Wikipedia content, and promises a part II that will talk about editing and more.

I’d also like to point out Ben’s post about Six Reasons to Steer Clear of Wikipedia. I have to agree that sometimes the best thing to do is just accept that you’re not listed like you want to be in Wikipedia and move on. One of Ben’s reasons hits the nail on the head in a way that you don’t see discussed much:

Wikipedians. They are the community of people who are working hard to ensure that Wikipedia retains or advances its standing in the information market. This means that they review virtually every article that gets added or edited. It means that they will revert changes you make if they don’t meet the standards in Wikipedia’s guidelines and documentation. This means they will nominate for deletion new entries that don’t meet those same standards. Don’t get me wrong: Wikipedians serve a very valuable purpose and they work hard — for free! Wikipedia would have nowhere near the respect it does without them. But don’t get me wrong: They make it difficult for a novice who doesn’t know what they’re doing or who is ignorant of the culture to get their entries or edits to stick. Some Wikipedians have a real RTFM attitude and have a low tolerance for newbies.

Low tolerance for newbies + intense media coverage + business people who are all too often incapable of honest participation = big problems.