Wikipedia’s content typically has at least okay accuracy and its audience is huge, plus its accuracy is inexpensive to improve to the quality level of any other source. Other communication channels may or may not have more accurate than Wikipedia, but almost always they serve a smaller audience, and it is expensive to increase traffic to them. There is less cost to increasing Wikipedia’s quality than there is to increasing another communication channel’s traffic, and in some comparisons for some messages, Wikipedia is the least expensive communication option.
Suppose that someone wanted to communicate information to a mass audience, and they were considering how they should invest their limited resources in having a good communication plan. This might mean publishing and distributing papers, or it might mean establishing a webpage and directing traffic to it, or communicating in any other way.
I communicate through Wikipedia. I consider how Wikipedia compares to other communication options. Previously, I wrote about how people compare the relative value of online communication channels, and discussed the “exchange rates for communication metrics“. Everyone considers their communication strategies of choice. The basis for my preference for Wikipedia is my observation that Wikipedia articles get a large audience. When I speak with other communication professionals, they often will not come to share my interest in Wikipedia. In my opinion, the basis of most criticism of Wikipedia is that its media content is low value and that its large audience accessibility is irrelevant. There is a counterpoint to that perspective, which is that other publishing platforms host content of relatively high value, and that even if that content has a smaller audience which uses the content less frequently, then still somehow there is more impact from having a communication strategy which disregards all communication except to channels which get esteem for their quality.
Even if Wikipedia’s content is lower quality or lower accuracy than alternatives (there is almost no research comparing Wikipedia’s quality to alternatives, and arguably, what exists says that Wikipedia’s quality is as good or better than alternatives), Wikipedia’s high accessibility and history of use makes it a powerful communication tool. In contrast, I think Wikipedia’s media competitors in similar spaces should be less confident about the relative quality of their information, and also, should recognize that their accessibility, reach, and audience share is low in any comparison with Wikipedia for any subject on which people seek online information.
Makovsky, a New York City-based public relations company, recently published Pulse of Online Health, a report based on surveys that they did. This report seems to be related to another report called Pulse of Online Search, published around the same time. Here is more information:
- Kelton (February 2016), Pulse of Online Search Survey: Initial Data (PDF), Makovsky PR, retrieved 25 March 2016
- Bernstein, Arielle (10 March 2016), Trust Me / I’m Easy – Makovsky Pulse of Online Search Survey 2016, Makovsky PR, retrieved 25 March 2016
- Sixth Annual “Pulse of Online Search”
- Fifth Annual “Pulse of Online Health”
I wish to present one finding, then I will discuss the methodology of that finding.
Their finding was that survey respondents ranked Wikipedia as the least-trusted health information resource, and that that people reported using it last among other options, but that it ranked as best for ease of use. (for best and worst, Wikipedia actually ties by 1% with others). This also means that respondents felt other health information resources had better quality, and were used more, and had higher ease of use. The methodology that they used was a ranking of various online health information sources by “trust, usage, and ease of use”.
I am pleased with this result, and I think most Wikipedians would expect to see data of this sort. There is nothing surprising about large numbers of people saying that Wikipedia’s content is low value and that they do not use it. What is surprising to me is that this PR company is presenting content value as information which should be taken in context with use and accessibility. I will share my perception of the historical context of this:
- Before the Internet, reach was determined by number of paper items circulated or sold, or the presumed audience which was physically exposed to media
- After the advent of the Internet, there was an idea in the communication industry that media views should be quantified. Since that time, there has been driving pressure on everyone who communicates anything to have access to a count of metrics and to treat that count as a proxy for conversions or impact.
- As metrics counting is becoming an industry practice, then over time, more people are considering the concept of the “communication metrics exchange rate“, by which I mean the relative value of communication reach in one channel versus another.
I like that the field is developing in a way that more people in communications consider relative merits of communication channels beyond simple getting high counts and taking those counts without considering their deeper meaning. As more people insist on evaluations of quality to be tied to counts of reach, I think the profile of Wikipedia will be raised.