Thanks, Interaction and Bringing It

Jan. 25 we got into a twitter war with UALR.  Ah, not really, but the very fact that two university social feeds decided to go back and forth on the gameday of a pair of rivals drew attention.

Got the media's comment and student's attention.  "Did you see that?" one asked me.  Grinning, why yes, yes I did.  An incredulous look from another administrative functionary.  "Why I've never seen that before, you know, between two university accounts."

Good-natured ribbing over who was going to win the first meeting of the two basketball teams.  Why not?  It was great fun.  It mobilized both fan groups who retweeted and added to the back and forth.  We kept is civil (and so did the fans for the most part).

The goal of social media is interaction.  When "institutions" are too concerned with being formal all the time, people will not relate.

What makes Old Main so important to Arkansas grads?  The Columns a sentimental heart tug to Northwestern State alums?  The Arch at A-State?

It's not the freaking architecture, people.  It's like Soylent Green -- it's peeeeeople.

Betcha remember that line.

Thus my point.  A helpful instructor.  A mentoring adviser.  A band of brothers or sisters who ran together.  Sporting events.  Social events.  Milestone events.  A catchy turn of a phrase.

These are the emotional connections we ascribe to our alma maters and then to the brick and mortar.

So let's act like people rather than architecture.

I want to give a shout out to our colleagues at UALR for making it fun, and showing us this new little weblette tool, replygif.net.  Someone's GIF'd up movie clips, no sound.  Let's hope the studios don't take them down soon (it's still in beta).

Sometime, no matter how cleaver you are, a picture tells the story better but video can evoke the motion best.

As we said back . . . .

Bring it.

The Social Media You May Not Monitor

Reading before the holidays a pair of references in the PRSA newsletter about the difficulties of brands dealing with errors on Wikipedia, I was aware of the twisted path I'd find myself on in early December.

 

As noted in the PRSA email, I do recognize there is a considerable amount of "Astroturfing" going on -- not just on the Wikis but all around the digital realm.

And in reading the accompanying column about the damage that inaccurate or maliciously false information on Wikipedia can do to brands, it got me watching a little closer.

Who knew I'd find myself inside Escher-like world of WikiProofing so soon after?

 

We talk at length about monitoring our social media and what our active folks in our organizations may be doing.  There's another social media you need to actively monitor.  The Wikis and similar born digital reference guides.

I want to make a quick preface to say, I use Wikipedia.  A lot.  But I also double check anything I personally don't know from my experience or my own historical background -- remember, the Dr in DrBS is a PhD in American history.  Teaching, no one was allowed to use WikiPedia as a primary source.  Why?

Our story begins with a passing mention in our media monitoring that our former Indian mascot made a list of eight insensitive Native American references.  Looking at the story on Indian Country Today Media Network, the author, Vincent Schilling, talked about the "Trail of Tears Classic" between Arkansas State and University of Louisiana at Monroe.

As a native of Monroe, graduate and former employee at the then Northeast Louisiana, I had never, ever heard the series with A-State called . . . well . . . anything.  Sure, these two Indian teams had that in common, but NLU's rival was Louisiana Tech; A-State far more interested in games with Memphis.

Both teams were mandated into mascot changes, so certainly there would not be any recent year Native American references.  With one exception -- the inside jokes passed among fans still upset about the change on message boards.  After a double check with both A-State and ULM officials, a note to Vincent with Indian Country Today Media Network to let him know his information was incorrect.

And that began the WikiOdessey.

Here are a series of links from the internet that prove the series is true, most of all, a Wikipedia entry by a poster I came to know by his screen name of Ejgreen77.  Ejgreen77 cited an online work from 2007 and a single news article which was not online.  I decided to make the correction myself.

This was my big mistake.

Truth did not matter.  What mattered to Ejgreen77 and the entirety of the WikiWorld was I was a WP:NO.  

"Based on this edit, it appears that you are a paid public-relations professional, employed by Arkansas State University. As such, please read WP:NO..."

Because I worked for A-State, I must have an agenda.  Because I knew the truth and dared to correct it, I was quickly labeled as a "hostile poster" and Ejgreen77 set about to have my account suspended.

This becomes the heart of the problem I have with Wikipedia, both as a public relations professional and as a professional historian.  Anyone can post things.  To paraphrase an old cliche, once it's on the internet, its the God's honest truth.  And under the rules of engagement from Wikipedia, only those without an interest can fix the internet.

 

(As you might expect, there is a Wikipedia page for the history of conflict of interest.  It's not really encouraging with the unrealistic line in the sand about "if you are paid by".  Guess if you get paid to teach or write American history, you shouldn't edit it on Wikipedia -- you have an interest in being right . . . )

Meanwhile, the media continued to not correct its story, but the editor sent a note to say that it didn't seem quite right and they would revise their story to say that certainly since the two schools changed their mascots during the early 2000s, the label wasn't currently being used.  But, because the Wikipedia entry persisted, they would not retract the story as based on inaccurate information.

Appealing to reviewers, a three-week process of near daily checking and updating information to plead the case began.  Throughout it all, the fact I had a PhD in history, that I had intimate knowledge of both programs, that I had grown up in the region, that I had worked in the sports media and could also speak to the inaccuracy -- all that mattered was I worked for A-State.

My level of frustration was high.  Now the mascot issue was on the other foot.  I had been labeled.  And I was not to be believed because of my associations.  I was being judged on the surface.

Eventually, allies came to my side, and several of them came to the same conclusion: none of this seemed to exist prior to the mascot changes.  I also found and supplied scans of books on college and regional sports history -- since the media guides of either school were not considered viable "truth".  After all, they were the product of WP:NO.

I also made the argument, if this series was real, where was the trophy like the Arkansas-LSU or Northwestern State-Stephen F. Austin series.  These also had Wiki entries, and photos of the trophies -- the Golden Boot and the giant cigar store Indian Chief Caddo.

Two days before Christmas, the Wiki court ruled in our favor, and changed the entry "permanently" to the Arkansas State-ULM Series.  Ejgreen77 went to the end believing in his story, and as far as I know, believing I had done some eeeeeeevil PR work.

To the full credit of Indian Country, once they saw the evidence and that Wikipedia had stricken the entry, they were more than gracious in removing their story.

And this is the heart of the story.  If this was a more visible, more contentious matter of brand reputation in which the media source was Wikipedia, what damage would result due to Wikipedia's policy to not take the word of those of us who happen to work for a group?

Is the takeaway of the story that we all have to buddy-up with someone we can call on to correct our inaccuracies that is not "connected" by a paycheck to our schools?

This seems like a poor way to run an encyclopedia.  It certainly isn't the Associated Press or any other reasonable media or governmental standard.  If the institution can prove an error, it gets corrected.

 

This all comes back around to the key points in the PRSA's survey: takes too long to respond, factual errors not addressed.

But the moral of both the article and our story:

Some Viewed Making Changes as Near Impossible: 23% of respondents felt that making changes to Wikipedia articles for their company or client was “near impossible” in 2012 and 2013.

 

Amen.

You Wanted Inside the Game

What do Madonna and Richard Sherman have in common? We just heard the voices inside their head.

Both find themselves the subject of our clucking disdain today for what they said out loud.  Madonna in social media and Sherman on the regular.

Madonna's Instagram message to her son using the N word that she pulled back saying she was not racist and that it was what goes for an inside joke is pretty straightforward social media faux pas.

But what of Sherman? His outburst at the close of the AFC Championship game set social media ablaze with recriminations for his corse behavior and turned the country against the Seattle Seahawks.

The shock and borderline horror in Erin Andrews eyes as he erupted in pure angry emotion during the post game interview tells you everything you need to know.

The network finally went too far.

The cameras on sidelines, in the sidelines, in the faces of injured or emotional players.  The in-game interviews with coaches.

All of it designed to "take you inside the game."

Well, you just got to go there, America. How do you like it now?

Should he have composed himself? Absolutely. Does he need some media training? Maybe.

There is a reason why there is a cooling off period after games before players and coaches are allowed to talk to the media.

The warrior mentality required of young men to stand alone out there on the island that is cornerback was revealed for all to see.

Did I not react to Sherman's self-absorbed outburst? Oh no, I thought it was terrible for the team and really soiled the joy of victory for the fans.

Was I surprised? Not really. Young players haven't had the years of experience controlling that raw emotional and taking it back to the locker room.

Will that happen again? Sure, but the league and the network will have some strong discussions about avoiding it.

That's the key - walking right up to the line but not crossing over.  Knowing how far you can go and pushing that limit.

Kinda like a quarterback lobbing for the back corner of the end zone, trying a cornerback's skill.

Sometimes, you get the ball slapped right back in your face.

Not So Happy New Year

Regrets for the lack of activity.  The combination of a bowl game with a trip to CASE national in DC followed by a serious shot of winter cold/walking pneumonia . . . . well, I'll catch you up with some new entries this week.