Hi All
The Chartered Institute of Public Relations has offered Wikipedia training slot(s) at their own ‘Summer School’ that it runs for the PR industry. CIPR is a training-driven organisation. It also sanctions members that infringe Best Practice rules in terms of PR. Its desire is to ‘get hold of’ the issue of poor ethical editing of Wikipedia and work with us to slowly ‘win our trust’ and ‘educate its own members in best practice over time.’ It is talking to its members internally about ‘Principles’ and ‘Good Practice Standards’ now and *may* have an initial discussion document ready for the Wikimedia UK Board meeting on April 21st in Monmouth. If it does, and the Board finds it acceptable, I have suggested to the PRCA/CIPR that they put forward that document and their desire to work with us in a talk at the AGM in front of all community members. Assuming we can get a consensus – this would lead to opportunities for members to run the summer school training programmes. But there is no commitment beyond the Science Museum AGM meeting in May on our part.
The Public Relations Consultancy Association (a sister group) is also interested in a similar arrangement. Though nothing specific has been discussed, they recognise they have a *longer journey to make* as they have most of the PR Agencies and their members on its books. This is where the commercial interest/conflict of interest problem kicks in. They are seeking ways to develop a training program in a way outlined above. And would work with the CIPR as *a single entity* in the arrangement mentioned above.
In addition, both bodies are keen on pulling together a single document that scours and collects all Wikipedia editing policies, guides to Best Practice, How to Do edit, What to Do, What Not to do etc (anything that could help them begin to structure a guide that PR industry members could be ‘taught’ formally by their industry body (CIPR). They also have a range of ideas on what the PR industry thinks would work and would not. In meetings with both bodies I stressed this is a slow process. It is about winning trust on both sides. And it won’t be sorted out quickly.
However, a positive discussion has begun. And both bodies are looking for ways in which they can encourage their own members to work with us in some small way and, in so doing, learn more about what we do and how we do it. They think better understanding and ‘doing editing’ will help the industry begin to learn how to edit Wikipedia properly and what is Best Practice. Some PRCA/CIPR members may be stepping forward to lend a hand in promoting our work in Monmouthpedia, a project which I commend to you all and recommend you read up on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA (the project)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA/Public_Relations (Key messages for the press)
http://monmouthpedia.wordpress.com/ (this latter is only a potential press content site under development)
From: wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Morton
Sent: 29 March 2012 10:34
To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] CREWE session in May
Hey all,
Some of you may be aware of the CREWE Facebook group; which is a group of PR types interested in opening a dialogue with Wikipedia over the current issues of COI and paid editing. There has been interest in having a session for CREWE members to meet some Wikipedians, discuss the issues, and learn about Wikipedia (and hopefully we could learn something too).
The idea is very early stage at the moment; guaging interest from both communities. I sent an email to Daria last night to see if the WMUK office could assist.
But what sort of interest is there within the rest of the Chapter?
We are aiming for around May - probably a small group of representatives, presentations from us and them, a Q&A/round table and probably a practical session.
- Are there any dates in May to avoid?
- Anyone interested in attending/engaging?
- Venue ideas?
- Format ideas?
- Anything else I missed?
I'd love to have a broad spectrum of editors involved - perhaps 5 or so (we're likely to have ~20 from CREWE) - so we can have a proper discussion. I know even within the community there is disagreement on some of the issues, and representing all of those (constructively) would be good.
Cheers,
Tom