I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do.
It is all well and good to say, well, it is ok so long as they remain neutral, but if they really want to write neutral articles, they can do so, on their own websites, and release the work under the FDL, and notify Wikipedians who are totally independent.
Additionally, it is always appropriate to interact on the talk pages of articles. If a PR firm is not happy about how something is presented about their client, they can identify themselves openly on the talk page, and present well-reasoned arguments and additional information and links.
Of course it is always going to be the case that unethical practitioners may get involved in inappropriate behavior, but I think this is no argument for simply accepting it. Rather, it is a strong argument for asking people to do this the right way: transparently and allowing independent editors to make the actual editing decisions.
--Jimbo
On 21/08/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do.
Would this or something like it make a decent press release?
- d.
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Would this or something like it make a decent press release?
Please no. Plastering Wikipedia with more rules isn't going to help much. Instead trying to persuade whoever the top PR gurus are that having PR companies is a bad idea has a slightly greater chance of working.
On 8/21/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Would this or something like it make a decent press release?
Please no. Plastering Wikipedia with more rules isn't going to help much. Instead trying to persuade whoever the top PR gurus are that having PR companies is a bad idea has a slightly greater chance of working.
This isn't more rules. It's the current rules.
On 8/21/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
This isn't more rules. It's the current rules.
-- Sam
Perhaps but that doesn't alter the basic point that outsiders are unlikely to read them and they are likely to burry other important stuff needed by insiders. We already have a serious case of when it comes to guidelines. People respond by trying to add bells and wistles to things they think are important but that just results in other people doing the same.
On 8/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do.
I'm CCing Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch on this. Sheldon is a leading expert on the PR industry and also hosts a wiki, sourcewatch.org, that deals specifically with these organizations. Given his many years of experience, I think he can give us some good advice on which approaches will work and which ones won't.
My take on it is that if we push PR industries to far to the outside, they will just do their work clandestinely. This will damage Wikipedia's reputation far more if it becomes known, especially when an article that has 200+ revisions was started and carefully groomed by a paid propagandist.
I don't see a compelling reasons why we need to force PR people to start articles _outside_ Wikipedia and go through some "trusted Wikipedian". In fact, it seems to me that doing so is more likely to lead to untraceable transactions. We must not just care about appearances, we must also care about the facts. Having a clean track record is better than some muddy variant of Chinese whispers.
I think a separate article creation process as described under WP:COI might work best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest
The user space has historically allowed POV material. It would give us a good record of all PR groups operating within Wikipedia. Surely it is in our interest to have such a record?
On 8/21/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/21/06, Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote:
I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do.
I'm CCing Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch on this. Sheldon is a leading expert on the PR industry and also hosts a wiki, sourcewatch.org, that deals specifically with these organizations. Given his many years of experience, I think he can give us some good advice on which approaches will work and which ones won't.
My take on it is that if we push PR industries to far to the outside, they will just do their work clandestinely. This will damage Wikipedia's reputation far more if it becomes known, especially when an article that has 200+ revisions was started and carefully groomed by a paid propagandist.
I don't see a compelling reasons why we need to force PR people to start articles _outside_ Wikipedia and go through some "trusted Wikipedian". In fact, it seems to me that doing so is more likely to lead to untraceable transactions. We must not just care about appearances, we must also care about the facts. Having a clean track record is better than some muddy variant of Chinese whispers.
I think a separate article creation process as described under WP:COI might work best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest
The user space has historically allowed POV material. It would give us a good record of all PR groups operating within Wikipedia. Surely it is in our interest to have such a record?
Yes, that does sound like a decent idea. Instead of having, say, Gregory post up an article on his web site then asking a trusted Wikipedian post it, we could have Gregory working in his own userspace, for everyone to see, in a place like [[User:MyWikiBiz/Norman Technologies]], then if he thinks it's of sufficient quality, he can send a message to someone (or a bunch of someones, maybe even a formal peer review) and have them edit it to appropriate Wikipedia standards. I think that is more in line with how we already handle articles that have been userfied.
On 8/22/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, that does sound like a decent idea. Instead of having, say, Gregory post up an article on his web site then asking a trusted Wikipedian post it, we could have Gregory working in his own userspace, for everyone to see, in a place like [[User:MyWikiBiz/Norman Technologies]], then if he thinks it's of sufficient quality, he can send a message to someone (or a bunch of someones, maybe even a formal peer review) and have them edit it to appropriate Wikipedia standards. I think that is more in line with how we already handle articles that have been userfied.
Yes, and it is much easier to attribute the text to the original contributor if the page is moved, than if the text is published under the GFDL elsewhere and copied across by another editor. I imagine there would be a whole regime of templates and categories to organise this :)
While there's something to be said for distancing people, and having them publish work first on their own websites, there's also an argument that bringing people into the fold, where the community can actively engage with and monitor them, could be more successful in achieving productive contributions in many cases.
On 8/21/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
The user space has historically allowed POV material. It would give us a good record of all PR groups operating within Wikipedia. Surely it is in our interest to have such a record?
We have enough problems with people trying to use userspace to advertise their products and services... A wikipedia userspace page is one of the easiest ways you can show up high on google search results, and as a result userpages are frequently misused by non-contributors to create a publicly visible pulpit for themselves.
To a random google using reader, it is often not at all obvious that they have hit a userpage or, even, what a userpage is verses Wikipedia proper. When the userpage *looks* like a Wikipedia article, there is a substantial risk of confusion. A non-wikipedian can not be expected to know that an wikipedia article with User: at the front is something substantially different from a wikipedia article without it.
I am very worried that such usage will risk causing additional harm to our readers and further damage to our reputation.
I, for one, am strongly opposed to any proposal which would further support the abuse of our resources as an advertising medium. Userpages exist to help users interact with each other inorder to further the project. They do not exist to provide a platform for advertisers to address the world.
That we already have users who believe that all third party edits to userpages are vandalism to be instantly reverted only increases the risk of this already risky proposal.
On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We have enough problems with people trying to use userspace to advertise their products and services... A wikipedia userspace page is one of the easiest ways you can show up high on google search results, and as a result userpages are frequently misused by non-contributors to create a publicly visible pulpit for themselves.
Simple answer: add a clear disclaimer template at the top of WP:COI articles, and delete them if they are rejected by the community. This is much easier if there's a standard process (there's that evil word again) to follow.
On 8/22/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
Simple answer: add a clear disclaimer template at the top of WP:COI articles, and delete them if they are rejected by the community. This is much easier if there's a standard process (there's that evil word again) to follow.
That's the first suggestion that sounds plausible.
"This article has been edited by the company in question or an agent acting on its behalf. It may not conform to the neutral point of view policy or may omit important facts."
It would not be unreasonable to ask a PR company simply to disclose the fact that they've edited the article by stamping it {{pr}} or something (calling it "conflict of interest" is probably going to put them off).
To be honest though, I don't see what the big deal. We have zillions of articles with all kinds of problems all over the place. Since when is the greatest of our problems a sympathetic article which just doesn't mention the fact that Foofoocom Industries got sued in 1983 for poisoning its employees?
I suspect also that any damage to our reputation will be confined to articles about companies. People will quickly learn to take our articles about companies with a grain of salt - hell, I already do. They're already one of our weakest areas.
Steve
If it hasn't been suggested already and this is not simply PR'n on an easy target with the "very very strongly", subscribing this list to the PRwatch weekly spin summary would help to remind admins about what to look out for on a regular basis. That would actually seem like very, very strong emphasis on the importance of this: http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/weekly-spin
The entire month up until now: http://www.prwatch.org/spin
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do.
It is all well and good to say, well, it is ok so long as they remain neutral, but if they really want to write neutral articles, they can do so, on their own websites, and release the work under the FDL, and notify Wikipedians who are totally independent.
Additionally, it is always appropriate to interact on the talk pages of articles. If a PR firm is not happy about how something is presented about their client, they can identify themselves openly on the talk page, and present well-reasoned arguments and additional information and links.
Of course it is always going to be the case that unethical practitioners may get involved in inappropriate behavior, but I think this is no argument for simply accepting it. Rather, it is a strong argument for asking people to do this the right way: transparently and allowing independent editors to make the actual editing decisions.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com