Hi, everybody. Longtime lurker, first time writing to the list—the first in a few years at least.
You may have seen some news coverage today about an initiative from a group of public relations, marketing, and communications agencies offering a statement, posted as a user essay on Wikipedia, stating in a public way their intention to follow Wikipedia's rules—especially regarding WP:COI—to educate themselves more about Wikipedia, and educate their colleagues and clients in turn.
- Here's the statement on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_particip... - Here's a good treatment of the subject from PR Week: http://www.prweek.com/article/1297798/pr-firms-outline-wikipedia-compliance-... - Here's a good blog post from Phil Gomes (User:Philgomes) about his agency's participation in it: http://www.edelman.com/post/todays-multi-agency-wikipedia-statement/
This is a project I've led for a few months now, following a meeting in DC in February, bringing together a number of big agency representatives with individuals from the Wikipedia community, and some with academic backgrounds. These included User:Ocaasi, User:Harej, and User:Fuzheado. Some who watch this list may well have been invited as well, and while I'd love to have had a bigger group, the conversation that day was very good, and has led us to this point.
We're also very mindful that this was only one step—as User:Pigsonthewing has reminded me, not the first such step—but I think it could be a good one. U.S. agencies going on the record as pledging to follow Wikipedia's rules is a new thing, and we hope can renew this conversation.
Following this message you'll find the statement in full, and a list of all agencies (and other organizations) signed to it, as well as names + usernames of the representative from each.
Cheers, Bill (User:WWB / User:WWB Too)
+++
*Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms*
On behalf of our firms, we recognize Wikipedia's unique and important role as a public knowledge resource. We also acknowledge that the prior actions of some in our industry have led to a challenging relationship with the community of Wikipedia editors.
Our firms believe that it is in the best interest of our industry, and Wikipedia users at large, that Wikipedia fulfill its mission of developing an accurate and objective online encyclopedia. Therefore, it is wise for communications professionals to follow Wikipedia policies as part of ethical engagement practices.
We therefore publicly state and commit, on behalf of our respective firms, to the best of our ability, to abide by the following principles:
- To seek to better understand the fundamental principles guiding Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. - To act in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly those related to "conflict of interest." - To abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. - To the extent we become aware of potential violations of Wikipedia policies by our respective firms, to investigate the matter and seek corrective action, as appropriate and consistent with our policies. - Beyond our own firms, to take steps to publicize our views and counsel our clients and peers to conduct themselves accordingly. - We also seek opportunities for a productive and transparent dialogue with Wikipedia editors, inasmuch as we can provide accurate, up-to-date, and verifiable information that helps Wikipedia better achieve its goals.
A significant improvement in relations between our two communities may not occur quickly or easily, but it is our intention to do what we can to create a long-term positive change and contribute toward Wikipedia's continued success.
*Participating agencies*
- Beutler Ink (William Beutler, User:WWB + User:WWB Too) - Ogilvy & Mather (Marshall Manson, User:Tmmanson) - FleishmanHillard (Sam Huxley, User:SamHuxleyFH) - Peppercomm (Sam Ford, User:Leumas712) - Burson-Marsteller (Patrick Kerley, User:Patrick at Burson) - Ketchum (Tim Weinheimer) - Porter Novelli (Dave Coustan, User:Extraface) - Voce Communications (Dave Coustan, User:Extraface) - Edelman (Phil Gomes, User:Philgomes) - Allison+Partners (Jeremy Rosenberg, User:Jeremy at A+P) - Glover Park Group, (Brian Gluckman, User:Bgluckman)
*Other participating organizations*
- MDC Partners (Michael Bassik, User:Mbassik) - Chartered Institute of Public Relations, (Andrew Ross, User:Andrew_ross_ajmross)
Hi all -
I was invited to the meeting Bill refers to, but unfortunately unable to attend. I've talked to a number of the participants though, and would like to stress that this is, well, er, not a joke. The PR-side people involved in this are sincere in what they state, and I genuinely believe that this is probably the best opportunity we've had to establish a working relationship with the PR industry that preserves the integrity of our encyclopedia while avoiding stuff like Bell Pottinger, Wiki-PR, and all the low level constant PR manipulation that occurs throughout our sites that we've ever been presented with.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:35 AM, William Beutler williambeutler@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, everybody. Longtime lurker, first time writing to the list—the first in a few years at least.
You may have seen some news coverage today about an initiative from a group of public relations, marketing, and communications agencies offering a statement, posted as a user essay on Wikipedia, stating in a public way their intention to follow Wikipedia's rules—especially regarding WP:COI—to educate themselves more about Wikipedia, and educate their colleagues and clients in turn.
- Here's the statement on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Statement_on_Wikipedia_from_particip...
- Here's a good treatment of the subject from PR Week:
http://www.prweek.com/article/1297798/pr-firms-outline-wikipedia-compliance-...
- Here's a good blog post from Phil Gomes (User:Philgomes) about his
agency's participation in it: http://www.edelman.com/post/todays-multi-agency-wikipedia-statement/
This is a project I've led for a few months now, following a meeting in DC in February, bringing together a number of big agency representatives with individuals from the Wikipedia community, and some with academic backgrounds. These included User:Ocaasi, User:Harej, and User:Fuzheado. Some who watch this list may well have been invited as well, and while I'd love to have had a bigger group, the conversation that day was very good, and has led us to this point.
We're also very mindful that this was only one step—as User:Pigsonthewing has reminded me, not the first such step—but I think it could be a good one. U.S. agencies going on the record as pledging to follow Wikipedia's rules is a new thing, and we hope can renew this conversation.
Following this message you'll find the statement in full, and a list of all agencies (and other organizations) signed to it, as well as names + usernames of the representative from each.
Cheers, Bill (User:WWB / User:WWB Too)
+++
*Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms*
On behalf of our firms, we recognize Wikipedia's unique and important role as a public knowledge resource. We also acknowledge that the prior actions of some in our industry have led to a challenging relationship with the community of Wikipedia editors.
Our firms believe that it is in the best interest of our industry, and Wikipedia users at large, that Wikipedia fulfill its mission of developing an accurate and objective online encyclopedia. Therefore, it is wise for communications professionals to follow Wikipedia policies as part of ethical engagement practices.
We therefore publicly state and commit, on behalf of our respective firms, to the best of our ability, to abide by the following principles:
- To seek to better understand the fundamental principles guiding
Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
- To act in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines,
particularly those related to "conflict of interest."
- To abide by the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use.
- To the extent we become aware of potential violations of Wikipedia
policies by our respective firms, to investigate the matter and seek corrective action, as appropriate and consistent with our policies.
- Beyond our own firms, to take steps to publicize our views and counsel
our clients and peers to conduct themselves accordingly.
- We also seek opportunities for a productive and transparent dialogue
with Wikipedia editors, inasmuch as we can provide accurate, up-to-date, and verifiable information that helps Wikipedia better achieve its goals.
A significant improvement in relations between our two communities may not occur quickly or easily, but it is our intention to do what we can to create a long-term positive change and contribute toward Wikipedia's continued success.
*Participating agencies*
- Beutler Ink (William Beutler, User:WWB + User:WWB Too)
- Ogilvy & Mather (Marshall Manson, User:Tmmanson)
- FleishmanHillard (Sam Huxley, User:SamHuxleyFH)
- Peppercomm (Sam Ford, User:Leumas712)
- Burson-Marsteller (Patrick Kerley, User:Patrick at Burson)
- Ketchum (Tim Weinheimer)
- Porter Novelli (Dave Coustan, User:Extraface)
- Voce Communications (Dave Coustan, User:Extraface)
- Edelman (Phil Gomes, User:Philgomes)
- Allison+Partners (Jeremy Rosenberg, User:Jeremy at A+P)
- Glover Park Group, (Brian Gluckman, User:Bgluckman)
*Other participating organizations*
- MDC Partners (Michael Bassik, User:Mbassik)
- Chartered Institute of Public Relations, (Andrew Ross,
User:Andrew_ross_ajmross) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 10 June 2014 21:30, Kevin Gorman kgorman@gmail.com wrote:
I was invited to the meeting Bill refers to, but unfortunately unable to attend. I've talked to a number of the participants though, and would like to stress that this is, well, er, not a joke. The PR-side people involved in this are sincere in what they state, and I genuinely believe that this is probably the best opportunity we've had to establish a working relationship with the PR industry that preserves the integrity of our encyclopedia while avoiding stuff like Bell Pottinger, Wiki-PR, and all the low level constant PR manipulation that occurs throughout our sites that we've ever been presented with.
IME this is from the decent PR people who are really nice, do in fact know what Wikipedia is and love it too, even if they're the sort of people who think infographics are excellent things. They're not too happy with the spammy types either.
(The most effective way I've found to get the point about "bright line" being a pretty good idea is to point to all the examples of the media *absolutely crucifying* people or companies for anything within a mile of a conflict of interest. That's *not* the sort of thing a decent PR wants on their track record.)
- d.
Kevin Gorman wrote:
I was invited to the meeting Bill refers to, but unfortunately unable to attend. I've talked to a number of the participants though, and would like to stress that this is, well, er, not a joke. The PR-side people involved in this are sincere in what they state, and I genuinely believe that this is probably the best opportunity we've had to establish a working relationship with the PR industry that preserves the integrity of our encyclopedia while avoiding stuff like Bell Pottinger, Wiki-PR, and all the low level constant PR manipulation that occurs throughout our sites that we've ever been presented with.
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRSTATEMENT
The statement is a nice read and it's hardly objectionable. I'd expect nothing less from a group of public relations folks, all of whom have a very vested interest in presenting themselves as good guys.
However, my gut feeling here is that this statement is a sham. My (cynical) read of this statement is basically "agencies such as ours keep getting caught editing on behalf of clients and it turns into a real shit-storm, so we'll say we'll play by the rules now, even though we'll really just hire contractors and subcontractors to do our dirty work."
These public relations firms are paid millions of dollars to ensure that their clients look good on the Internet. Wikipedia is a major player on the Internet, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to make these clients look good, it's to have objective and neutral educational content about notable entities. Both public relations firms and Wikipedia are served by better, more accurate articles, but only one side is being paid millions of dollars each year to ensure that the information makes clients look good.
It also seems a bit strange that these companies feel it appropriate to use the English Wikipedia as their hosting platform for this statement. This probably needs further thought and consideration. It isn't as though any of these companies would have difficulty buying hosting elsewhere to post their essays and statements about how they're now reformed.
About the general trend, this practice is not novel. As I wrote in May 2012, the current approach by (particular) paid editors is a "radical transparency" approach, it seems. The idea is that if you do everything out in the open, you can't later be punished because everyone was aware of what you were doing and who you were doing it for. It remains an open question whether this approach is working well or benefitting Wikipedia.
MZMcBride
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRSTATEMENT
The statement is a nice read and it's hardly objectionable. I'd expect nothing less from a group of public relations folks, all of whom have a very vested interest in presenting themselves as good guys.
However, my gut feeling here is that this statement is a sham. My (cynical) read of this statement is basically "agencies such as ours keep getting caught editing on behalf of clients and it turns into a real shit-storm, so we'll say we'll play by the rules now, even though we'll really just hire contractors and subcontractors to do our dirty work."
These public relations firms are paid millions of dollars to ensure that their clients look good on the Internet. Wikipedia is a major player on the Internet, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to make these clients look good, it's to have objective and neutral educational content about notable entities. Both public relations firms and Wikipedia are served by better, more accurate articles, but only one side is being paid millions of dollars each year to ensure that the information makes clients look good.
It also seems a bit strange that these companies feel it appropriate to use the English Wikipedia as their hosting platform for this statement. This probably needs further thought and consideration. It isn't as though any of these companies would have difficulty buying hosting elsewhere to post their essays and statements about how they're now reformed.
About the general trend, this practice is not novel. As I wrote in May 2012, the current approach by (particular) paid editors is a "radical transparency" approach, it seems. The idea is that if you do everything out in the open, you can't later be punished because everyone was aware of what you were doing and who you were doing it for. It remains an open question whether this approach is working well or benefitting Wikipedia.
MZMcBride
One reason to think its legit and not a smokescreen? Signing on to the statement substantially increases the potential costs of being caught violating WP policies. Clients hiring bare knuckles PR experts may not have a high regard for the importance of our site policies. If news gets blasted out that a firm said "We'll abide by these principles, we promise!" and then publicly fails to do so, clients might care about that more.
On 12 June 2014 15:17, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
One reason to think its legit and not a smokescreen? Signing on to the statement substantially increases the potential costs of being caught violating WP policies. Clients hiring bare knuckles PR experts may not have a high regard for the importance of our site policies. If news gets blasted out that a firm said "We'll abide by these principles, we promise!" and then publicly fails to do so, clients might care about that more.
Yeah. Even in these dark days, journalism occasionally happens, and PR people are keenly aware of the rows of severed heads the media has stuck on spikes around its Wikipedia coverage. [*]
- d.
[*] ok, this analogy got a bit strained by the end of the sentence. However, severed heads on spikes and not wishing to join them is the main emotion here.
Hi Kevin, I agree that the volunteer bandwidth for reviewing requested edits on English Wikipedia is a constraint. There are several backlogged queues on English Wikipedia at the moment, and I would be interested in hearing ideas for how to shrink the backlogs. We can discuss on the English Wikipedia email list, a village pump, or Jimbo's talk page if you prefer. Just let me know off-list.
Thanks,
Pine
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 7:21 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 June 2014 15:17, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
One reason to think its legit and not a smokescreen? Signing on to the statement substantially increases the potential costs of being caught violating WP policies. Clients hiring bare knuckles PR experts may not
have
a high regard for the importance of our site policies. If news gets
blasted
out that a firm said "We'll abide by these principles, we promise!" and then publicly fails to do so, clients might care about that more.
Yeah. Even in these dark days, journalism occasionally happens, and PR people are keenly aware of the rows of severed heads the media has stuck on spikes around its Wikipedia coverage. [*]
- d.
[*] ok, this analogy got a bit strained by the end of the sentence. However, severed heads on spikes and not wishing to join them is the main emotion here.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Indeed. The thing that I like about this is that it shows these PR firms are aware of our rules and the controversy around paid editing. If they now get busted, they can hardly say that they didn't know.
Regards, Craig Franklin
On 13 June 2014 00:17, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PRSTATEMENT
The statement is a nice read and it's hardly objectionable. I'd expect nothing less from a group of public relations folks, all of whom have a very vested interest in presenting themselves as good guys.
However, my gut feeling here is that this statement is a sham. My (cynical) read of this statement is basically "agencies such as ours keep getting caught editing on behalf of clients and it turns into a real shit-storm, so we'll say we'll play by the rules now, even though we'll really just hire contractors and subcontractors to do our dirty work."
These public relations firms are paid millions of dollars to ensure that their clients look good on the Internet. Wikipedia is a major player on the Internet, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to make these clients look good, it's to have objective and neutral educational content about
notable
entities. Both public relations firms and Wikipedia are served by better, more accurate articles, but only one side is being paid millions of dollars each year to ensure that the information makes clients look good.
It also seems a bit strange that these companies feel it appropriate to use the English Wikipedia as their hosting platform for this statement. This probably needs further thought and consideration. It isn't as though any of these companies would have difficulty buying hosting elsewhere to post their essays and statements about how they're now reformed.
About the general trend, this practice is not novel. As I wrote in May 2012, the current approach by (particular) paid editors is a "radical transparency" approach, it seems. The idea is that if you do everything out in the open, you can't later be punished because everyone was aware
of
what you were doing and who you were doing it for. It remains an open question whether this approach is working well or benefitting Wikipedia.
MZMcBride
One reason to think its legit and not a smokescreen? Signing on to the statement substantially increases the potential costs of being caught violating WP policies. Clients hiring bare knuckles PR experts may not have a high regard for the importance of our site policies. If news gets blasted out that a firm said "We'll abide by these principles, we promise!" and then publicly fails to do so, clients might care about that more. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:05 AM, William Beutler williambeutler@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, everybody. Longtime lurker, first time writing to the list—the first in a few years at least.
You may have seen some news coverage today about an initiative from a group of public relations, marketing, and communications agencies offering a statement, posted as a user essay on Wikipedia, stating in a public way their intention to follow Wikipedia's rules—especially regarding WP:COI—to educate themselves more about Wikipedia, and educate their colleagues and clients in turn.
Thank you for posting this. It was a pleasant surprise and seems like a sound and constructive approach to this issue.
Best Bishakha
I appreciate this, WWB, especially after the grilling I gave you about proposed edits to the Hedge fund article! The fact that you and your clients are persistent, willing to be open about your associations, and willing to abide by Wikimedia's CoI's standards even if it makes adding content take a lot longer, is a big plus. I hope you, your clients, and Wikipedia will mutually benefit from this in the long run.
Pine
Pine
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:05 AM, William Beutler < williambeutler@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, everybody. Longtime lurker, first time writing to the list—the first
in
a few years at least.
You may have seen some news coverage today about an initiative from a
group
of public relations, marketing, and communications agencies offering a statement, posted as a user essay on Wikipedia, stating in a public way their intention to follow Wikipedia's rules—especially regarding
WP:COI—to
educate themselves more about Wikipedia, and educate their colleagues and clients in turn.
Thank you for posting this. It was a pleasant surprise and seems like a sound and constructive approach to this issue.
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Pine -
It's worth noting that although Bill was one of the primary architects of this and deserves quite a bit of credit for that imho, it has effects far beyond just him and his own clients. There's an awful lot of big PR firms on the list of participating agencies, including Edelman, Burson-Marsteller, FleishmanHillard, and Ogilvy. A significant chunk of the US-based PR industry has signed on to this - I think one of the more interesting questions in coming months will be figuring out whether or not we actually have the volunteer bandwidth to have a significant chunk of the PR industry playing by our current rules.
Best, Kevin Gorman
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:29 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate this, WWB, especially after the grilling I gave you about proposed edits to the Hedge fund article! The fact that you and your clients are persistent, willing to be open about your associations, and willing to abide by Wikimedia's CoI's standards even if it makes adding content take a lot longer, is a big plus. I hope you, your clients, and Wikipedia will mutually benefit from this in the long run.
Pine
Pine
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Bishakha Datta bishakhadatta@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:05 AM, William Beutler < williambeutler@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, everybody. Longtime lurker, first time writing to the list—the
first
in
a few years at least.
You may have seen some news coverage today about an initiative from a
group
of public relations, marketing, and communications agencies offering a statement, posted as a user essay on Wikipedia, stating in a public way their intention to follow Wikipedia's rules—especially regarding
WP:COI—to
educate themselves more about Wikipedia, and educate their colleagues
and
clients in turn.
Thank you for posting this. It was a pleasant surprise and seems like a sound and constructive approach to this issue.
Best Bishakha _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org