Wikiwashing is a series of actions used by corporate
infrastructure providers which promote an image of themselves associated with
values of wikis – such as openness, sharing, collaboration, transparency. At the same time, these companies use unethical practices like privacy violation, abusive
terms of use, censorship and use of volunteer work for economic ends. The real
practices and profit-seeking intentions of these corporations are obscured from
the user through the use of branding strategies and public relations which
advertise a misleading public image of the companies. [1]
In other words, providers of sharing platforms like Facebook and Twitter deal with practices not aligned with the values of a participatory culture, insofar as they seek to profit from the exploitation of users’ data, but they secure users and build trust by promoting wiki-connected values. When TripAdvisor, for instance, mentions the selling of users’ data to advertisers in its terms of use, the social networking website does it through the use of euphemisms, claiming that they “share” the users’ data with third parties with the aim of improving the platform for users. Other example is Facebook, which reduces the issue of privacy to who have access to the user’s profile, leaving aside the problems related to the political economy of the website. [2]
History edit
The term wikiwashing was coined by Fuster Morell in an article in 2008 and it was chosen in a reference to whitewashing, a painting technique that was used in the fourteenth century in order to quickly provide a white and cheap appearance. Over time, the term whitewashing got political connotations and started to be used in a reference to the intention of appearing beautiful on the surface without changing the interior. After that, new terms were created to represent specific types of whitewashing, such as greenwashing, bluewashing and pinkwashing. [3]
Meaning of the term edit
The word wikiwashing is also an allusion to the Wikipedia and wiki technologies in a broader sense, since the positive characteristics attributed to this type of non-profit organisations – collective intelligence, transparency, collaboration, among others – are often used by corporations with the objective to “wash” or clean their images, diverting users` attention from their unethical practices that go against the values of wiki communities. The Hawaiian word wiki means “quick”, as it tends to be the reaction of corporations when it comes to prevent negative content about them to go viral. Besides, the term wiki composes as well the concept of Wikonomics – the new dynamics of economics which arose with the commercialization of information by media companies. [4]
The new economy behind Wikiwashing edit
Since the beginning of the 21st century, new types of sharing practices were developed through digital technologies. This new logic of communication increased the possibilities of sharing content and transformed the way we interact with information. Several types of online collective action emerged with the dissemination of new media, influencing the way individuals communicate and participate in the process of knowledge production. An infrastructure containing basic elements which include servers, online platforms with tools and domain names is necessary for a collaborative community to be developed. Different types of infrastructure providers came up, varying from mission based initiatives as the Wikipedia, from [[Wikimedia Foundation]], to profit based ones like Google, which offers search engine services. In the past decade, however, the number of profit-seeking infrastructure providers has expanded considerably, configuring a new form of economy based on the exploration of sharing practices and information access. [5]
Known also as Wikinomics or Web 2.0, this new model of economy has as its main examples companies such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, TripAdvisor, Youtube, Google, Instagram, among others. There are particular characteristics in the interconnection between media corporations and their “clients” which could not be found before the emergence of the Wikinomics. Firstly, individuals became to be seen as users of the services provided rather than passive consumers of pre-constructed messages or products. Within this logic, while corporations afford platforms and tools, users contribute with most part of the content. Thereby, infrastructure providers are dependent of user-generated content since the value of their platforms leans on users’ productivity. The dependence can be considered a fragility of this business model insofar as media companies cannot control the behaviour of their users, which are related to a set of factors, ranging from their availability to collaborate to theirs motivations and positions towards each situation. Besides, due to the fact that users’ attitudes are difficult to be foreseen, the reputation of a media company is vulnerable. On the one hand, the infrastructure provider’s lack of control of their own platforms empowers the users of online communities since they can demand ethical practices from the corporations, for instance. On the other hand, it creates the need for media corporations to connect their image to positive values and build trust among users. In order to achieve the desirable reputation, companies end up promoting a misleading image of themselves. [6]
Literature edit
- Fuchs, Ch. (2014). Social Media. A Critical Introduction. Chapter 7: Facebook: A Surveillance Threat to Privacy?. London: Sage. ISBN 978-1-4462-5731-9. pp. 153-174
- Fuster Morell, M. (2011). "The Unethics of Sharing: Wikiwashing". International Review of Information Ethics. 15. Nature Publishing Group: 9-16. ISSN 1614-1687.