[WikiEN-l] Using Wikipedia as a Marketing Tool

[Carcharoth]

I'm not clear who you are disagreeing with.

The debate seems to be shifting to one about pseudonymous versus
non-pseudonymous editing, which wasn't the point I was making. I think
we both agree that editing under "marching orders" is bad, but I never
made the presence or not of pseudonymous editing part of my argument
(though clearly that can aid transparency).

Though on looking back at what WereSpielChequers wrote, I see he added
"or to edit in your real name" at the end of his post. I was focusing
more on the "good reason not to talk about this particular hobby at
work". The divide here is probably more between people who separate
their working life and the rest of their life (which is quite a lot of
people, I would guess, especially those where the work involves
professional standards) and those that blur the boundaries between
their work and the rest of their life.

And then there is stuff you talk about at work around the water cooler
or with (work) friends, which is something different again. It also
depends on whether more of your friends are drawn from your work
circles or other areas of your life. And then you have people who work
for their family or family firm, which must be even more complicated
(though rarer).

Carcharoth

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Steven Walling <steven.walling at gmail.com> wrote:
> I couldn't disagree more strongly. I have encountered this exact situation
> many times over (i.e. I've had bosses, coworkers, friends, and relatives all
> ask me to edit for them), and it's never been a problem that I edit under my
> real name. The exact opposite in fact. It's been a *huge* asset in being
> able to say "No, I don't do that."
>
> Most people don't understand that even using a pseudonym, Wikipedians
> generally care very much about their reputation on the site. Not being
> pseudonymous was an enhancement to my argument against editing under
> marching orders, because Wikipedia is not just my hobby, it's part of my
> reputation that persists online and offline. Even the technologically
> illiterate understand the motivation to protect one's good name.
>
> Steven Walling
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 4:45 PM, WereSpielChequers
>> <werespielchequers at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > One of those steps being "Check to see if anyone already working at
>> > your company is a Wikipedia volunteer. If so, that person can be a
>> > valuable resource to help you find your best strategy for getting
>> > included." Now that sounds like a pretty good reason not to talk about
>> > this particular hobby at work, or to edit in your real name.
>>
>> I agree absolutely! I'm fortunate in that where I work doesn't have a
>> Wikipedia entry, though there are sporadic mentions within other
>> articles (one red-link, one dead link in a reference, one external
>> link, and one incidental mention). I would be horrified if I was ever
>> approached to "help" with anything Wikipedia-related to where I work.
>> I have, sometimes, looked up some of the people I occasionally
>> correspond with, or who crop up during the course of my work, and some
>> of them have Wikipedia articles, but most don't.
>>
>> The article also says "The more mentions you have in the press, and
>> the more visibility you have in social media and blogs". This
>> completely misunderstands what a reliable source is and the difference
>> between having a big (and usually temporary) media presence, and an
>> enduring presence that generates its own press. There is a difference
>> between media puffery of a company and independent, industry-wide
>> evaluation by those with an interest in getting things right (and not
>> just putting spin on things) - this is usually related to "getting
>> things right" in terms of investing in or taking over a business.
>>
>> They also miss the most obvious method. Grow your company until it is
>> so big that it will get an article anyway.
>>
>> The brutal truth is, that if you are a small company, unless you get
>> big you will either not amount to much (and end up as a footnote in
>> history, if that), or you will get big and get taken over, or take
>> others over, or you will fold and vanish. The real test of enduring
>> notability in business is whether a company or brandname is remembered
>> after it has gone or been swallowed up by others. If no-one remembers
>> much about something 5 years later, it probably wasn't worth writing
>> about in the first place, unless it endured for several decades at
>> least or did something that garnered a lot of attention, and maybe not
>> even then.
>>
>> Carcharoth
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>