When it comes to PR and Wikipedia, it can at times be a nightmare. The ability for users to (previously) add comments and changes anonymously could lead to a corporate scandal that never actually occurred. With the new changes of requiring users to register before becoming members, there is still the opportunity for scandal, but many of them have proper origins.
Some people see it as a bad thing that Wikipedia will quickly transform from a stock bio of a company/person to scandal. In my opinion, having the transparency of Wikipedia keeps PR people on their toes about scandal and controversy. Information may leak that is better left unsaid, but chances are it would have found its way to the press either way.
The channel of Wikipedia is a great source of information and will continue to be treated as such. It may not be as reputable as the newspaper, but journalists and bloggers will still take the information and add it to their columns. This new scenario means that PR people will need to be more alert and more in-the-know than ever before. Nothing should appear on any channel (whether online or off) that the PR person is unaware of. Wikipedia should also never post any type of new scandal, rather just be a "storage" of past grievances the company had endured.
