I had to explain this once, and my notes read something like this: Skilled PR people know there's a story to tell. They think in terms of the story. But Wikipedia is a neutral source. We think in terms of significant facts. So there's a fundamental new kind of writing style and filter of what is important and appropriate, and how to communicate. It's the difference between your doctor's medical report and the launch of an iPad - they are fundamentally different style and focus. We use the word "encyclopedic" to describe our approach. It means we are neutral, we write based on facts and citations, we write densely to educate and not to persuade, we believe that if the facts are stated readers can and will assess them. Where that works, is that many PR professionals are ethical, and have valid information that's relevant and cited. They are transparent, they seek help, they know they can't write as they usually do in Wikipedia and accept other's help to find what will fit. But a huge amount of PR just isn't relevant to Wikipedia or dresses up its subject, and it's there that the community is ruthless in removing and exposing abusers. Bad PR tries to use the medium to make a point. Good PR has points that fit the medium. Good PR on Wikipedia provides checkable facts of major significance to the topic. *What does that mean for PR experts wanting to leverage Wikipedia? It means* - Learn how to tell when your subject is relevant. Be selective, and if in doubt ask. You may find it isn't relevant. You wouldn't expect to find an article on fish farming in a medical website; you may not find your topic has a place on Wikipedia. Accept it. - Learn to think "what would a reference source say". Many reference sources are very terse. They don't tell a story, they give key facts. - Consider open disclosure. State whom you represent, and what information you'd like to add, seek help, and discuss it. If you engage other users the odds are very good your work will either be accepted and you with it, or you'll save a lot of time and get an opinion before making promises. Respect and trust are Wikipedia's currency. Leverage them. Don't be ashamed of writing for a client, but be honest that's what you want to do, and see if it helps. - Above all, don't try to manipulate or play games. Don't use multiple accounts. Don't spam. After 11 years, Wikipedia and its community have got very good at finding abuse. It gets reported in the press. In many cases PR people have found, to their horror, that they have indeed added a valid subject - but the puffery got trimmed, and the negative side they never wanted exposed, was also added to balance it. Remember, you don't have any right to remove text or delete topics you added on Wikipedia, and your worst nightmare might be to find someone else has added to your masterpiece, the information you didn't want out there. With newspaper or peer reviewed citations. Or it's been discussed and deleted. There is no time limit afgter which work is safe, so it can be modified or deleted at any time if the community's attention is drawn to it. *What sort of content does Wikipedia value?* We have guidelines on the content that's suitable and unsuitable. In general, we document topics that the world at large has demonstrably already taken significant notice of, in some way or another. The Eiffel Tower or Apple Corporation - yes. The local town mayor or a band or product that hasn't made its mark - no. Information that can be authoritatively checked - yes. Information based on rumor or anecdote - no. A lot of the time, articles do exist but information is sparse. If you have a product that won awards, but the details aren't published, then all that can be said is, "it has won awards". Consider what information might be useful and relevant for a reference source, and consider whether your client needs to make that information public so it's citable. Consider what you have or do that might meet the strict standards of Wikipedia, and if they don't - accept it. If you think they do - be open and honest, and ask. *How to start?* Wikipedia is community driven in a way many PR people can't imagine. Every topic has a talk page for questions, and there are noticeboards for new topics, and to discuss issues on existing ones. If you see an error, and it's clearly factually wrong, you can change it. If you think your action might be seen as biased, explain it on the discussion page. If you aren't sure, find a suitable noticeboard and raise it as a concern for others to look at. Seek second opinions - it shows you're being honest and stops misunderstandings. If you don't like the answer, ask for others to comment. See what they say. Look up our basic rules and policies, and the spirit of the editing process, and if you want to make a habit of Wikipedia editing, invest some time and learn how it works. There are some good guides to it, but the best guide is to try it yourself. Pick something you don't have strong ties to, and try to see how it's covered and look for improvements. Invest the time, and ask for help. Thank you. Hope that's some use :) FT2 On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On 6/13/12, Tom Morris <tom(a)tommorris.org> wrote: One small correction there. Administrators hold no special position with regards to editing. All editors in good standing with a good grasp of policies and guidelines and how to edit can help answer such questions (such as questions or suggestions placed on the talk page of an article, as is one suggested approach). Administrators are only needed when you have deletions or undeletions taking place, and that isn't always the case (though I realise you were referring to that in your example). Not that the public at large really get the distinction, though. Carcharoth

Not bad David! I tend to take a bit more of a liberal guideline on fixing obvious blatant vandalism: "Google CEO Larry Page is a great big poopyhead" should be reverted no matter what, even if you have a conflict of interest, or are Larry Page himself, and would have thought this is generally accepted in the community. Then again, better cautious than crucified. What I fully and completely agree with is your assessment of your ponytail. On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: I do appreciate the difficulty here. Advice like the above should not be mistaken to also mean that one should revert "writer x of some obscure weblog described Larry Page as a great big poopyhead[1]". That should also be fixed, but a step back there and taking the talkpage route is the good idea there for a COI editor. That's a subtle point to explain to a Wikipedia newcomer.