The City is decidedly weary of Wikipedia and the power the online encyclopaedia that "anybody can edit" wields. "It just means it's open season on everybody, doesn't it?" a senior financial PR man tells The Times. "Yes, we follow it in the mix, but we're very doubtful about the site's editorial checks. The thing is, however, the web means any story can go global in a nanosecond."

In short, he suggests, the cacophony of online content spewed out by blogs, chatrooms and vast user-generated reference works means it has never been harder for companies to manage one of their most important assets - their reputations. In an effort to combat that trend, a new industry is springing up to allow companies and individuals to track how they are perceived on the web - call it PR 2.0.

Reputica, a privately-owned group founded in June already counts two FTSE 100 companies, a leading football club, three "very rich individuals" and a "famous female pop singer" as clients.

Such is the interest in the type of "automated reputation management" the company offers, Reputica is holding talks with No.10 Dowing Street. "They are interested in using our technology to track how policy changes play out online," Andrew Jordan , the company's chairman and co-founder says.

Reputica trawls "the entire spectrum of online media" - including Wikipedia - to seek out reputation enhancing or damaging content, mirroring the methods used to organise digital data by search engines such as Google.

Relevant content is automatically analysed using algorithms - sophisticated mathematical formulae - to determine whether a piece of text is likely to impact positively or negatively on a client's reputation.

The end result is a simple guage on a desktop "dashboard". An arrow pointing to the green sector indicates that a client is enjoying a good reputation. A red reading signals a bad one. The sites where relevant coverage has appeared are also displayed, allowing a client to pinpoint publications where it is receiving particuarly bad press.

Significantly, "traditional media" sources, such as newspaper websites, are given a greater weighting than a Wikipedia page in the formulae that determine a subject's reputation ranking. The papers, it appears, are still seen as more influential in the court of public opinion. That will let the old PR industry rest a little easier -- for now.

Times Recommends

• Lies and cover-up at MG Rover exposed by report
• High oil prices push manufacturing costs up
• Primark founder steps down as chief executive