http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-us...
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted.
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-us...
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
This article makes my week.
I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages.
SJ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted.
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-us...
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of them have proved open to learning a new medium. (The basic instruction I give them is to write a dull an article as possible, remove all possible adjectives, use the minimum number of words, give the name of the company only once, list nobody but the successive CEOs, provide specific sourced numbers about market share, and give no contact information beyond the principal web site.) And when I see a promotional article for a notable company, if I have the time i neither delete nor blank it, but rewrite it according to my just those instructions.
And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for people to think they needed to write their own article.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
This article makes my week.
I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages.
SJ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted.
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-us...
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any negative information, however notorious.
Fred
A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of them have proved open to learning a new medium. (The basic instruction I give them is to write a dull an article as possible, remove all possible adjectives, use the minimum number of words, give the name of the company only once, list nobody but the successive CEOs, provide specific sourced numbers about market share, and give no contact information beyond the principal web site.) And when I see a promotional article for a notable company, if I have the time i neither delete nor blank it, but rewrite it according to my just those instructions.
And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for people to think they needed to write their own article.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
This article makes my week.
I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages.
SJ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted.
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-us...
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
They may presume that the presence of stuff that hasn't yet been de-pufferied (I made that word up) means that what they write will stay. But the key point is lack of control. If you put something on Wikipedia, you cannot control the content and that is what a lot of people fail to understand. It becomes part of the wiki-editing process, which at its best produces great stuff, and at its worst produces some rather bad stuff.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any negative information, however notorious.
Fred
A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of them have proved open to learning a new medium. (The basic instruction I give them is to write a dull an article as possible, remove all possible adjectives, use the minimum number of words, give the name of the company only once, list nobody but the successive CEOs, provide specific sourced numbers about market share, and give no contact information beyond the principal web site.) And when I see a promotional article for a notable company, if I have the time i neither delete nor blank it, but rewrite it according to my just those instructions.
And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for people to think they needed to write their own article.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
This article makes my week.
I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages.
SJ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted.
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-us...
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think continued monitoring of an article by a skilled PR operative would result in an informative, well-referenced article, which notes, but does not dwell on negative aspects. As noted, such an effort would have to integrated with our usual editing patterns.
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong with it?
Fred
They may presume that the presence of stuff that hasn't yet been de-pufferied (I made that word up) means that what they write will stay. But the key point is lack of control. If you put something on Wikipedia, you cannot control the content and that is what a lot of people fail to understand. It becomes part of the wiki-editing process, which at its best produces great stuff, and at its worst produces some rather bad stuff.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any negative information, however notorious.
Fred
A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of them have proved open to learning a new medium. (The basic instruction I give them is to write a dull an article as possible, remove all possible adjectives, use the minimum number of words, give the name of the company only once, list nobody but the successive CEOs, provide specific sourced numbers about market share, and give no contact information beyond the principal web site.) And when I see a promotional article for a notable company, if I have the time i neither delete nor blank it, but rewrite it according to my just those instructions.
And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for people to think they needed to write their own article.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
This article makes my week.
I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages.
SJ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted.
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-us...
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong with it?
Dunno. Nothing wrong with it as PR, obviously, almost by definition. As we know, what we can enforce (pretty much) is that people edit within the rules; we cannot in any sense enforce the "fairway" mentality that makes for an article in "Position A", squarely in the middle of what the facts support.
Charles
On 04/02/2010 12:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong with it?
Possibly, which is the problem. The main function of PR is to put the best spin on things in a way that everybody accepts that as the truth. By its nature, it's unavoidably POV and COI. Bad PR gets caught doing this; good PR doesn't.
Wikipedia has shifted the balance of power some: there are new ways for PR people to get caught, and importing their broadcast-media habits makes them look dumb. But I have every reason to expect that PR people will adapt. Even so I think they'll have a hard time shifting the tone much on articles that get a lot of attention; the room to spin there is small. But for more obscure topics, I think there's plenty of gray area within which they can construct an article that suits their purposes. Purposes that are necessarily different than ours.
William
I'm don't think that is always true which is what DGG was getting at. You are right you CAN run the risk of them being "so good" that you can't tell it's spin but to be honest you usually can in the wiki environment. A good PR group is going to know that just getting a well written article on Wikipedia (even with bad things in the article) can increase the information and exposure out there for the company and in the end be much much better then an article with spin that gets deleted :). The biggest problem is making sure that
1. The PR people see that there is a difference and that they and the company they represent our better served by a good Wiki article. and 2. That the COMPANY realizes they are better served by a good Wiki article so that they let the PR company do it.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :)
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
On 04/02/2010 12:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong with it?
Possibly, which is the problem. The main function of PR is to put the best spin on things in a way that everybody accepts that as the truth. By its nature, it's unavoidably POV and COI. Bad PR gets caught doing this; good PR doesn't.
Wikipedia has shifted the balance of power some: there are new ways for PR people to get caught, and importing their broadcast-media habits makes them look dumb. But I have every reason to expect that PR people will adapt. Even so I think they'll have a hard time shifting the tone much on articles that get a lot of attention; the room to spin there is small. But for more obscure topics, I think there's plenty of gray area within which they can construct an article that suits their purposes. Purposes that are necessarily different than ours.
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
If there is gray area, it is the PR person's job to maximally exploit that without ever getting caught. It's our job to minimize the gray area.
I think the reason people feel that we can generally detect PR spin in the wiki environment is that PR people aren't used to dealing with us. Their habits are mainly tuned for broadcast media and the general public, so their attempts at manipulation often look clumsy and obvious to us.
However, it is still early days. The first step will be them learning to stop being obvious jerks, and this article is a fine example of that. But if Wikipedia is actually important to them, they will learn how to play the game like any other skilled POV pusher. And unlike the hobbyist POV pushers we have now, these people will be professionals, ones playing a long game. They'll have a number of advantages, like a steady paycheck and an information asymmetry that strongly favors them.
Having watched skilled PR people totally play professional journalists, I'm sure that they'll learn to play us just as well. For us, that will mean appearing earnest, helpful, concerned about a balanced article, etc, etc. It will mean knowing about our policies and culture. It will mean providing useful references, building good articles, and generally being a good citizen. They'll learn how to build trust with us in the same way that they have learned how to build trust with journalists, and then they will use that trust to the benefit of their clients, because that's their job.
Like you and DGG, I think their interests and ours coincide about 90% of the time, so I don't have a big problem with that. If they are pros, the good ones won't cause the trouble that blatant POV pushers cause. I just wouldn't want people to forget that PR people are paid POV pushers with an ineradicable conflict of interest, no matter how nice and helpful they learn to become.
William
On 04/03/2010 07:29 PM, James Alexander wrote:
I'm don't think that is always true which is what DGG was getting at. You are right you CAN run the risk of them being "so good" that you can't tell it's spin but to be honest you usually can in the wiki environment. A good PR group is going to know that just getting a well written article on Wikipedia (even with bad things in the article) can increase the information and exposure out there for the company and in the end be much much better then an article with spin that gets deleted :). The biggest problem is making sure that
- The PR people see that there is a difference and that they and the
company they represent our better served by a good Wiki article. and 2. That the COMPANY realizes they are better served by a good Wiki article so that they let the PR company do it.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :)
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM, William Pietriwilliam@scissor.com wrote:
On 04/02/2010 12:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong with it?
Possibly, which is the problem. The main function of PR is to put the best spin on things in a way that everybody accepts that as the truth. By its nature, it's unavoidably POV and COI. Bad PR gets caught doing this; good PR doesn't.
Wikipedia has shifted the balance of power some: there are new ways for PR people to get caught, and importing their broadcast-media habits makes them look dumb. But I have every reason to expect that PR people will adapt. Even so I think they'll have a hard time shifting the tone much on articles that get a lot of attention; the room to spin there is small. But for more obscure topics, I think there's plenty of gray area within which they can construct an article that suits their purposes. Purposes that are necessarily different than ours.
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What about Wikipedia editors who change career to become PR people? :-)
Carcharoth
(Who nevers wants to be a PR person, ever)
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 5:00 PM, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
If there is gray area, it is the PR person's job to maximally exploit that without ever getting caught. It's our job to minimize the gray area.
I think the reason people feel that we can generally detect PR spin in the wiki environment is that PR people aren't used to dealing with us. Their habits are mainly tuned for broadcast media and the general public, so their attempts at manipulation often look clumsy and obvious to us.
However, it is still early days. The first step will be them learning to stop being obvious jerks, and this article is a fine example of that. But if Wikipedia is actually important to them, they will learn how to play the game like any other skilled POV pusher. And unlike the hobbyist POV pushers we have now, these people will be professionals, ones playing a long game. They'll have a number of advantages, like a steady paycheck and an information asymmetry that strongly favors them.
Having watched skilled PR people totally play professional journalists, I'm sure that they'll learn to play us just as well. For us, that will mean appearing earnest, helpful, concerned about a balanced article, etc, etc. It will mean knowing about our policies and culture. It will mean providing useful references, building good articles, and generally being a good citizen. They'll learn how to build trust with us in the same way that they have learned how to build trust with journalists, and then they will use that trust to the benefit of their clients, because that's their job.
Like you and DGG, I think their interests and ours coincide about 90% of the time, so I don't have a big problem with that. If they are pros, the good ones won't cause the trouble that blatant POV pushers cause. I just wouldn't want people to forget that PR people are paid POV pushers with an ineradicable conflict of interest, no matter how nice and helpful they learn to become.
William
On 04/03/2010 07:29 PM, James Alexander wrote:
I'm don't think that is always true which is what DGG was getting at. You are right you CAN run the risk of them being "so good" that you can't tell it's spin but to be honest you usually can in the wiki environment. A good PR group is going to know that just getting a well written article on Wikipedia (even with bad things in the article) can increase the information and exposure out there for the company and in the end be much much better then an article with spin that gets deleted :). The biggest problem is making sure that
- The PR people see that there is a difference and that they and the
company they represent our better served by a good Wiki article. and 2. That the COMPANY realizes they are better served by a good Wiki article so that they let the PR company do it.
James Alexander james.alexander@rochester.edu jamesofur@gmail.com 100 gmail invites and no one to give them to :( let me know if you want one :)
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:58 PM, William Pietriwilliam@scissor.com wrote:
On 04/02/2010 12:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong with it?
Possibly, which is the problem. The main function of PR is to put the best spin on things in a way that everybody accepts that as the truth. By its nature, it's unavoidably POV and COI. Bad PR gets caught doing this; good PR doesn't.
Wikipedia has shifted the balance of power some: there are new ways for PR people to get caught, and importing their broadcast-media habits makes them look dumb. But I have every reason to expect that PR people will adapt. Even so I think they'll have a hard time shifting the tone much on articles that get a lot of attention; the room to spin there is small. But for more obscure topics, I think there's plenty of gray area within which they can construct an article that suits their purposes. Purposes that are necessarily different than ours.
William
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
At 12:00 PM 4/4/2010, William Pietri wrote:
If there is gray area, it is the PR person's job to maximally exploit that without ever getting caught. It's our job to minimize the gray area.
Well, that's one kind of PR. This negative view of PR is common, and justified because that's exactly what polticial consultants do and other kinds of PR people who don't trust that the truth is enough to promote their product or position.
But if you look at what PR educators teach, it's the opposite. It's taught that if you deceive your audience, there will be a backlash when they find out. Good PR tries to educate the public about the product or cause. It relies on their intelligence, though it must also understand their ignorance and their habits. The kind of PR that has the reputation mentioned is the kind that relies on and exploits ignorance, and prefers ignorance because it seems easier to manipulate, as it often is. A good PR person who finds that his or her employer wants the latter kind of PR will sensibly find another client or job, because it's unstable. Of course, high pay is always tempting.... but that applies to all temptations to lie and cheat in order to make a profit, it's not confined to PR.
I think the reason people feel that we can generally detect PR spin in the wiki environment is that PR people aren't used to dealing with us.
Except for the sophisticated ones, before which Wikipedia is a piece of cake. I have recently come to look more carefully at the Mantanmoreland case, and what I find is that Wikipedia is *still* being used as a tool in a very-well-financed campaign, quite successfully. I've found the edits, which are blatantly POV, but still stand, because the editor, banned and editing through IP, knows how to frame them so that they will fly under the radar and do their work unnoticed, except by WordBomb and friends, and, for the most part, non-banned editors who recognize the real situation have been banned or are heavily discouraged, because they will be reverted if they try. As they are, even within the last few days.
I'm not banned (from this) and I could make the edits, but I know what will happen if I do, even though I have had no involvement in the topic area. I would be banned, based on recent ArbComm opinion about my work. Even though I'd merely be removing material that is contrary to source and contrary to policy. PR content. It's actually fairly clumsy PR, but good enough is good enough.
Turns out it takes very little to pull the wool over the eyes of the community. Only the stupid or ignorant PR people get caught.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:40 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about their client, not necessarily to directly promote them.
Yes. Treated properly, this energy could be put to good use producing free knowledge. I look forward to a world in which librarians, museum curators, secretaries, agents, superintendnts and publishers all see "creating or updating free content about their work" as part of their normal duties.
And if we had a systematic campaign to provide basic information about all companies that meet our notabiliity requirements, the way we do for populated places, it would greatly diminish the tendency for people to think they needed to write their own article.
Very true. Crisp definitions of notability that allow for a constructive list of all notable instances of the topic, and systematic campaigns (with bot support for seeding and review) make a tremendous difference in the stable growth of articles on that topic.
Rather than waiting for someone to both care about a group and understand where to find notability guidelines, we should have lists of notable groups without articles compiled by people who know those guidelines and how to mine public databases. Then the people who know about the topic (but not WP policy quirks) can get to work writing the article, people who cry NN on deletion discussions can be pointed to the "list of notable <foo> without articles", and the aforementioned writers can simply worry about citations, verifiability, and decent prose.
People sometimes to say that 'all the easy articles have been written', but I regularly run across topic areas which are interesting, notable, but overlooked with tens of thousands of subjects missing. Geographic places in internet-free zones; monuments and buildings in Asia and Africa; notable professors and politicians outside of modern North America and Europe; businesses that were notable in their day but have since merged or shut down; notable published works that are out of print; even, as DGG says, modern notable businesses, or bands and other artists who don't have a Wikipedia-savvy following.
SJ
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:34 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
This article makes my week.
I generally feel we should blank articles more and delete them less, but this is an area where the explicit rebuff of deletion has its advantages.
SJ
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted.
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-us...
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised to think twice before incorporating Wikipedia entries into campaign strategies after the site started cracking down on articles submitted by any public relations agency it considered to be using its resource to promote clients.
(muwahaha. Spotted by Mathias Schindler. The article sets out en:wp's rationales and likely actions very well indeed.)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
I'm not sure about bot-seeded and maintained topics. You need to have the human editors to go with that. Having bots doing stuff *without* humans working with them and complementing them, tends to be a recipe for disaster.
Rather than waiting for someone to both care about a group and understand where to find notability guidelines, we should have lists of notable groups without articles compiled by people who know those guidelines and how to mine public databases. Then the people who know about the topic (but not WP policy quirks) can get to work writing the article, people who cry NN on deletion discussions can be pointed to the "list of notable <foo> without articles", and the aforementioned writers can simply worry about citations, verifiability, and decent prose.
But I like this idea! Those lists do sort of exist in userspace and in redlinked lists in mainspace, and there are (or was) some systematic listing of such things at "requested articles". Have a look at requested articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles
Are you suggesting something like that, but maintained by editors who decide which suggestions are notable? I predict edit wars over which links would stay or go on such lists. The only thing more useless than arguing over an existing article at AfD, is arguing over an article that hasn't even been created yet... :-)
People sometimes to say that 'all the easy articles have been written', but I regularly run across topic areas which are interesting, notable, but overlooked with tens of thousands of subjects missing. Geographic places in internet-free zones; monuments and buildings in Asia and Africa; notable professors and politicians outside of modern North America and Europe; businesses that were notable in their day but have since merged or shut down; notable published works that are out of print; even, as DGG says, modern notable businesses, or bands and other artists who don't have a Wikipedia-savvy following.
Or even founding editors of publications like the Times Literary Supplement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lyttelton_Richmond
As one of the sources I looked at said, not a name many have heard of, but a surprising amount of influence.
Carcharoth