That world of online-reviews is not exactly the Wild West.  There are industry standards, ethical boundaries of the Word of Mouth Marketing Association and U.S. Federal Trade Commission guidelines on disclosure.

Little understood by many is the need for firms to use proactive techniques to counter the dark side of reviewing.  Critics complain about Yelp’s elevation of good reviews for firms that advertise on Yelp.  Less well understood is how often it is necessary to use tools to get out the good word, to protect oneself from what Chicago’s Zocalo Group calls “reputation terrorists” and “competitive destroyers.”

It boiled down to basically, it’s useless when it’s fake.  Just like in the real world, networking is only worthwhile when real substantial relationships are being cultivated.

Now, I’d add one grain of salt.  That is that for some applications of social networking, you are looking for volume and you can get away with have “less real” relationships by making up for normal symbiosis with other items of value (contests, discounts, etc).

Watch the two minute video after the jump.

A good consulting firm will not recommend the same social media approach for every client.  Depending on your objective, there are a broad range of levels of engagement that could be appropriate.

Brian Solis has a helpful post today outlining his 10 steps of integrating social media into your business.

As the Financial Times reports, the site’s stable of voluntary editors has not grown apace with its increasing volume of articles.  The result, says the FT, is that entries “will be harder to monitor quality — and vested interests will find it easier to make alterations that reflect their own views.”

Not that the site lacks for accuracy challenges now.  The FT notes that “even optimists… agree with the more skeptical observers on this: that in terms of reliability and service, Wikipedia still has along way to go.”  Yet attempts to “subject changes by newcomers [i.e., new contributors] to approval by more experienced editors and flagging any revisions” have run into intense resistance in the hyper-egalitarian Wiki-corps.

The communications problem here is a familiar one:  The world has changed.  The organization needs to adjust. But both members of the organization (those most involved with Wikipedia are volunteers, not employees) and many of those it serves see the adjustments as violating the values and standards that got the organization where it is today and that they believe in.  Part of leadership in a time of change is to communicate how fundamental values are being preserved, not thrown over, by recognizing that circumstances have changed.