Hi all,
I found this a bit comical:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedi...
They don't get it that the COI policy affects everyone.
They think that just because they want people to pay them to change the articles they should be allowed to do so!
"Ingham added that too many of the people who edit Wikipedia still do not understand PR."
"Too many of them continue to have the knee-jerk reaction that information from a PR professional must intrinsically be wrong. Ingham urged Wikipedia to implement radical reform to its editing process."
Just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean that they do not understand you.
No-one is saying their information is intrinsically wrong, just that they should not edit articles relating to their clients.
all the best
Leuthe
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:14 PM, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:
Hi all,
I found this a bit comical:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedi...
They don't get it that the COI policy affects everyone.
They think that just because they want people to pay them to change the articles they should be allowed to do so!
"Ingham added that ‘too many of the people who edit Wikipedia still do not understand PR’."
"‘Too many of them continue to have the knee-jerk reaction that information from a PR professional must intrinsically be wrong.’ Ingham urged Wikipedia to implement ‘radical reform’ to its editing process."
Just because someone does not agree with you, does not mean that they do not understand you.
No-one is saying their information is intrinsically wrong, just that they should not edit articles relating to their clients.
all the best
Leuthe
That's not entirely fair, for several reasons:
Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to when you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us&oldid=513...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_probl...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_probl...
It is now vastly improved – Oliver (Ironholds) did some fantastic work on it in October, and cut out some subpages altogether – but until last month, it was a daunting task just to locate the OTRS e-mail, and on the way there you passed a prominent invitation to just "Fix it yourself."
Another problem is that OTRS can sometimes take weeks to reply. One very distressed BLP subject told me it was four weeks before he heard back. Also see this comment by Jclemens: "I've seen this happen on OTRS time and time again: real tickets about unbalanced articles do go unanswered for weeks."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI...
PR people are told to leave messages on article talk pages. Problem is, these are routinely ignored for days, weeks or forever. Even if they're not, often the only editors attending are those responsible for the state of the article that caused the complaint in the first place.
On Jimbo's talk page someone just suggested using the COI noticeboard as a default location for PR people to raise concerns. I think that could work: there are regulars attending to that noticeboard, and complaints there would get outside eyes on the perceived problem, and an answer within a reasonable time frame.
Andreas
On 13 November 2012 22:29, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
That's not entirely fair, for several reasons: Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to when you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze:
Bollocks. The case is about Finsbury removing well-referenced information to attempt to cleanse a client's entry. You are stretching beyond sanity to paint their actions as in any way reasonably acceptable.
- d.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 November 2012 22:29, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
That's not entirely fair, for several reasons: Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to
when
you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze:
Bollocks. The case is about Finsbury removing well-referenced information to attempt to cleanse a client's entry. You are stretching beyond sanity to paint their actions as in any way reasonably acceptable.
- d.
You may have noticed that I don't like the idea of Usmanov's biography being sanitised, and posted on its talk page to that effect.
But this is a completely different matter from the way Wikipedia handles complaints. Wikipedia gets anonymous contributions that spin just as well as the best PR companies, only negatively, and there must be a way for justifiably aggrieved biography subjects to get some satisfaction.
Francis Ingham, the guy who made that comment about Wikipedia's cumbersome and opaque complaints system, is the PRCA director-general, and he does not work for Finsbury as far as I know. And it so happens I and Tom Morris here for example said exactly the same thing about the complaints system until a few weeks ago – until Oliver revamped the whole thing.
That still doesn't mean every OTRS e-mail will get a prompt reply, but it's a step in the right direction.
Andreas
The OTRS Quality queue is again over 200, which is pretty worrying. Partially my fault as I haven't been doing much if any OTRS work recently. Doug
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 November 2012 22:29, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
That's not entirely fair, for several reasons: Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to
when
you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze:
Bollocks. The case is about Finsbury removing well-referenced information to attempt to cleanse a client's entry. You are stretching beyond sanity to paint their actions as in any way reasonably acceptable.
- d.
You may have noticed that I don't like the idea of Usmanov's biography being sanitised, and posted on its talk page to that effect.
But this is a completely different matter from the way Wikipedia handles complaints. Wikipedia gets anonymous contributions that spin just as well as the best PR companies, only negatively, and there must be a way for justifiably aggrieved biography subjects to get some satisfaction.
Francis Ingham, the guy who made that comment about Wikipedia's cumbersome and opaque complaints system, is the PRCA director-general, and he does not work for Finsbury as far as I know. And it so happens I and Tom Morris here for example said exactly the same thing about the complaints system until a few weeks ago – until Oliver revamped the whole thing.
That still doesn't mean every OTRS e-mail will get a prompt reply, but it's a step in the right direction.
Andreas
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 14/11/12 05:51, Doug Weller wrote:
The OTRS Quality queue is again over 200, which is pretty worrying. Partially my fault as I haven't been doing much if any OTRS work recently. Doug
This is volunteer effort, so, from time to time volunteering effort can slide (I speak from my own personal experience).
On the other hand, "PR Industry".....
Gordo
Hello all,
I thought you might like to know that I spoke with the journalist from PR Week yesterday about the story they published on this issue. They are keen to include it in their print edition, which goes out tomorrow.
The main points:
- I reminded him of the existing guidelines that Wikipedians, Wikimedia UK and the CIPR worked on and recommended the guidelines to his readers - I explained that COI doesn't just apply to PR professionals, but to everyone. We aren't making PR a special case in that respect - Wikipedia is a collaborative, voluntary project - nobody owns the content - I also made the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a PR platform.
I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome.
If anyone has any specific concerns and would like to discuss them, I'm more than happy to discuss this, on or off list.
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
On 14 November 2012 09:00, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 14/11/12 05:51, Doug Weller wrote:
The OTRS Quality queue is again over 200, which is pretty worrying. Partially my fault as I haven't been doing much if any OTRS work recently. Doug
This is volunteer effort, so, from time to time volunteering effort can
slide (I speak from my own personal experience).
On the other hand, "PR Industry".....
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 14 November 2012 11:25, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome.
Stating the obvious isn't always unhelpful: making the system work properly is win-win for Wikipedia's readers and those with legitimate corrections/updates.
Charles
I think the journalist was more interested in trying to paint a picture of conflict by asking that question, which makes for a more interesting story for some people. I was really keen for that not to happen. I was more interested in getting across the points about how Wikipedia works and how it can be engaged with, rather than stirring up trouble!
Thanks,
Stevie
On 14 November 2012 11:42, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
wrote:
On 14 November 2012 11:25, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but
really
there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome.
Stating the obvious isn't always unhelpful: making the system work properly is win-win for Wikipedia's readers and those with legitimate corrections/updates.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I would be tempted to say "We hope this is an isolated problem and that most UK PR agencies employ someone who doe not find it cumbersome to send an Email".
WSC
On 14 November 2012 11:46, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
I think the journalist was more interested in trying to paint a picture of conflict by asking that question, which makes for a more interesting story for some people. I was really keen for that not to happen. I was more interested in getting across the points about how Wikipedia works and how it can be engaged with, rather than stirring up trouble!
Thanks,
Stevie
On 14 November 2012 11:42, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 14 November 2012 11:25, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but
really
there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome.
Stating the obvious isn't always unhelpful: making the system work properly is win-win for Wikipedia's readers and those with legitimate corrections/updates.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Stevie Benton < stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hello all,
I thought you might like to know that I spoke with the journalist from PR Week yesterday about the story they published on this issue. They are keen to include it in their print edition, which goes out tomorrow.
The main points:
- I reminded him of the existing guidelines that Wikipedians,
Wikimedia UK and the CIPR worked on and recommended the guidelines to his readers
- I explained that COI doesn't just apply to PR professionals, but to
everyone. We aren't making PR a special case in that respect
- Wikipedia is a collaborative, voluntary project - nobody owns the
content
- I also made the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a PR
platform.
I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome.
If anyone has any specific concerns and would like to discuss them, I'm more than happy to discuss this, on or off list.
Thanks and regards,
Stevie
Here is a good thread started by a Wikipedia admin, Smartse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Spotting_off-wiki_dispute... .
He gives the example of a person who posted at least seven times to the AIV board about clear BLP violations, and never got an answer. (Of course it's not the right board, or the right format, but it shows how people struggle with our system.)
As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them.
Andreas
On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them.
Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it?
Charles
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or
mainly)
edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them.
Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it?
No; but there are articles in the PR "weight class" that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604
His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article.
Andreas
On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them.
Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it?
No; but there are articles in the PR "weight class" that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604
His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article.
With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The "too thin" phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012.
Charles
On 14 November 2012 12:31, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue.
Yes, it's Andreas pushing a hobbyhorse again.
- d.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that
we
have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them.
Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it?
No; but there are articles in the PR "weight class" that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604
His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom
have
ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR
agent.
We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often
it's
only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article.
With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The "too thin" phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012.
Charles
Sorry, I am not following you. How has it been addressed in 2012?
Andreas
On 14 November 2012 12:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:23, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
As I said in that discussion, the underlying problem seems to be that we have a certain number of low-notability articles that are only (or mainly) edited by the subjects themselves, and the people who hate them.
Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it?
No; but there are articles in the PR "weight class" that can be just as problematic. The article on Vodacom for example was attacked by a white supremacist, who posted about his exploits here:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604
His stuff stayed in there for months. There is no evidence that Vodacom have ever taken an interest in their article; but I am sure they have a PR agent. We are simply spread too thin to prevent this sort of thing, and often it's only the subjects themselves, or their PR agents, who try to fix the article.
With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue. The "too thin" phenomenon is the result of growth (a problem of success) and can be addressed in other ways. And has been, in 2012.
Charles
Sorry, I am not following you. How has it been addressed in 2012?
Training in the UK, and the WMUK VLE, are two things in which I have a personal involvement.
Charles
It certainly does, although we don't think it's quite ready for rolling out to the entire world yet.
Would you be interested in becoming a beta-tester when we start larger-scale testing? If so, please drop Charles a line.
Cheers,
Hello everyone,
PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
Basically, it's a defence of Wikipedia's editing policies quoting the CIPR and yours truly.
Do let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Thanks,
Stevie
On 14 November 2012 21:02, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
It certainly does, although we don't think it's quite ready for rolling out to the entire world yet.
Would you be interested in becoming a beta-tester when we start larger-scale testing? If so, please drop Charles a line.
Cheers,
Doug
On 14 November 2012 20:39, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 14/11/12 12:55, Charles Matthews wrote:
Training in the UK, and the WMUK VLE, are two things in which I have a personal involvement.
Charles
Does the WMUK VLE exist?
Gordo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
They have you as "Wikipedia [with a "p"] UK comms organiser". is suspect we may never win that battle.
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Thanks for your email Andy. I've already requested they correct that error.
With regards to your point about COI editing - the guidelines the CIPR refer to were developed with WMUK, some Wikipedians and some people from CIPR and PRCA. The development took place on the WMUK Wiki and was widely shared and people were encouraged to participate.
Regardless of whether there is a total prohibition on editing article spaces directly in EN:WP policy, we have seen (many, many times) that when PR professionals directly edit article space bad things happen. Even if edits are benign and factual, if it comes to light that they were made directly by PRs acting on behalf of a client, nobody wins and a COI is automatically assumed by many. It's not good for trust in Wikipedia, it's not good for the PR industry and it's not good for their clients.
If you'd like some more background on the development of the guidance, a good place to start is at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
Thanks,
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
PR Week have published another story on this -
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
They have you as "Wikipedia [with a "p"] UK comms organiser". is suspect we may never win that battle.
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
On 15 November 2012 10:58, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for your email Andy. I've already requested they correct that error.
With regards to your point about COI editing - the guidelines the CIPR refer to were developed with WMUK, some Wikipedians and some people from CIPR and PRCA. The development took place on the WMUK Wiki and was widely shared and people were encouraged to participate.
Regardless of whether there is a total prohibition on editing article spaces directly in EN:WP policy, we have seen (many, many times) that when PR professionals directly edit article space bad things happen. Even if edits are benign and factual, if it comes to light that they were made directly by PRs acting on behalf of a client, nobody wins and a COI is automatically assumed by many. It's not good for trust in Wikipedia, it's not good for the PR industry and it's not good for their clients.
If you'd like some more background on the development of the guidance, a good place to start is at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
Thanks,
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
They have you as "Wikipedia [with a "p"] UK comms organiser". is suspect we may never win that battle.
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Do you think that's a bad thing Andy?
On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
On 15 November 2012 10:58, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for your email Andy. I've already requested they correct that
error.
With regards to your point about COI editing - the guidelines the CIPR
refer
to were developed with WMUK, some Wikipedians and some people from CIPR
and
PRCA. The development took place on the WMUK Wiki and was widely shared
and
people were encouraged to participate.
Regardless of whether there is a total prohibition on editing article
spaces
directly in EN:WP policy, we have seen (many, many times) that when PR professionals directly edit article space bad things happen. Even if
edits
are benign and factual, if it comes to light that they were made
directly by
PRs acting on behalf of a client, nobody wins and a COI is automatically assumed by many. It's not good for trust in Wikipedia, it's not good for
the
PR industry and it's not good for their clients.
If you'd like some more background on the development of the guidance, a good place to start is at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
Thanks,
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton <
stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>
wrote:
PR Week have published another story on this -
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
They have you as "Wikipedia [with a "p"] UK comms organiser". is suspect we may never win that battle.
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over
Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
I think it's an outcome of PR-types being dragged through the press for editing articles. So, yes, from that angle (a defensive mechanism) it's bad.
The guideline always struck me as coming from the direction of "this is how to avoid making the news" rather than "this is how to engage with Wikipedia".
Tom
On 15 November 2012 11:40, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
Do you think that's a bad thing Andy?
On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
On 15 November 2012 10:58, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for your email Andy. I've already requested they correct that
error.
With regards to your point about COI editing - the guidelines the CIPR
refer
to were developed with WMUK, some Wikipedians and some people from CIPR
and
PRCA. The development took place on the WMUK Wiki and was widely shared
and
people were encouraged to participate.
Regardless of whether there is a total prohibition on editing article
spaces
directly in EN:WP policy, we have seen (many, many times) that when PR professionals directly edit article space bad things happen. Even if
edits
are benign and factual, if it comes to light that they were made
directly by
PRs acting on behalf of a client, nobody wins and a COI is automatically assumed by many. It's not good for trust in Wikipedia, it's not good
for the
PR industry and it's not good for their clients.
If you'd like some more background on the development of the guidance, a good place to start is at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
Thanks,
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton <
stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>
wrote:
PR Week have published another story on this -
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
They have you as "Wikipedia [with a "p"] UK comms organiser". is suspect we may never win that battle.
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
(who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control
over
Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Thanks for your comment Tom. I think it's a bit of both of those things.
Wikipedia doesn't want PR professionals making edits without considering NPOV or COI. PRs don't want to end up in the press for "scurrilous editing of Wikipedia." Clients of PRs don't want erroneous or hostile information on their Wikipedia page. The approach taken in the guidelines, if followed, should negate all of those potential negatives. I think the big weakness that exists is the one discussed yesterday, the relative lack of OTRS volunteers.
Hope this is useful, but I'm happy to discuss further. The guidelines will certainly be revised at some point, and any useful changes we can make to them will be universally welcomed, I'm sure.
Thanks,
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 11:44, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
I think it's an outcome of PR-types being dragged through the press for editing articles. So, yes, from that angle (a defensive mechanism) it's bad.
The guideline always struck me as coming from the direction of "this is how to avoid making the news" rather than "this is how to engage with Wikipedia".
Tom
On 15 November 2012 11:40, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.ukwrote:
Do you think that's a bad thing Andy?
On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
On 15 November 2012 10:58, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for your email Andy. I've already requested they correct that
error.
With regards to your point about COI editing - the guidelines the CIPR
refer
to were developed with WMUK, some Wikipedians and some people from
CIPR and
PRCA. The development took place on the WMUK Wiki and was widely
shared and
people were encouraged to participate.
Regardless of whether there is a total prohibition on editing article
spaces
directly in EN:WP policy, we have seen (many, many times) that when PR professionals directly edit article space bad things happen. Even if
edits
are benign and factual, if it comes to light that they were made
directly by
PRs acting on behalf of a client, nobody wins and a COI is
automatically
assumed by many. It's not good for trust in Wikipedia, it's not good
for the
PR industry and it's not good for their clients.
If you'd like some more background on the development of the guidance,
a
good place to start is at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
Thanks,
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton <
stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>
wrote:
PR Week have published another story on this -
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
They have you as "Wikipedia [with a "p"] UK comms organiser". is suspect we may never win that battle.
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
(who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over
Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 15 November 2012 11:44, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
The guideline always struck me as coming from the direction of "this is how to avoid making the news" rather than "this is how to engage with Wikipedia".
We do need a bit more of the second bit. We're slowly evolving something sensible, I think.
The most effective form of engagement is to become a Wikipedian, but that isn't for everyone.
- d.
I'm ambivalent about the CIPR guidelines; I'm concerned about how often I see the Wikipedia guidelines misrepresented.
Thanks Andy. We aren't talking about Wikipedia guidelines though, we're talking about recommended guidelines put together for the PR industry by the CIPR, Wikipedians and Wikimedia UK on how Wikipedia works and how to interact with it. I think the approach that the CIPR and WMUK took on this issue was a sensible one, there was an effort to reach a consensus and plenty of people got involved in the discussion, coming at the discussion from many different perspectives.
Thanks,
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 12:19, Andy Mabbett pigsotwing@gmail.com wrote:
I'm ambivalent about the CIPR guidelines; I'm concerned about how often I see the Wikipedia guidelines misrepresented.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk On Nov 15, 2012 11:40 AM, "Stevie Benton" stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Do you think that's a bad thing Andy?
On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
On 15 November 2012 10:58, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for your email Andy. I've already requested they correct that
error.
With regards to your point about COI editing - the guidelines the CIPR
refer
to were developed with WMUK, some Wikipedians and some people from
CIPR and
PRCA. The development took place on the WMUK Wiki and was widely
shared and
people were encouraged to participate.
Regardless of whether there is a total prohibition on editing article
spaces
directly in EN:WP policy, we have seen (many, many times) that when PR professionals directly edit article space bad things happen. Even if
edits
are benign and factual, if it comes to light that they were made
directly by
PRs acting on behalf of a client, nobody wins and a COI is
automatically
assumed by many. It's not good for trust in Wikipedia, it's not good
for the
PR industry and it's not good for their clients.
If you'd like some more background on the development of the guidance,
a
good place to start is at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
Thanks,
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton <
stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>
wrote:
PR Week have published another story on this -
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
They have you as "Wikipedia [with a "p"] UK comms organiser". is suspect we may never win that battle.
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England
and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513.
Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A
4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation
(who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over
Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
--
Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton
Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 15 November 2012 12:26, Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I think the approach that the CIPR and WMUK took on this issue was a sensible one, there was an effort to reach a consensus and plenty of people got involved in the discussion, coming at the discussion from many different perspectives.
I think WMUK playing "soft cop" to Jimbo's "hard cop" makes sense, and can lead somewhere.
Charles
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
Charles mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_an... yesterday as related to this question.
Given that this court judgment is based on EU law, it could potentially have quite far-reaching consequences for the legal status of COI editing in Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Germany have commissioned a legal opinion from an expert. Could I suggest Wikimedia UK do the same? While the underlying EU Directive applies in both countries, there may be differences in national implementation.
Andreas
Thanks for sending this over Andreas. I'll raise it with the Trustees for discussion.
Stevie
On 15 November 2012 12:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
Charles mentioned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-11-12/News_an... yesterday as related to this question.
Given that this court judgment is based on EU law, it could potentially have quite far-reaching consequences for the legal status of COI editing in Wikipedia.
Wikimedia Germany have commissioned a legal opinion from an expert. Could I suggest Wikimedia UK do the same? While the underlying EU Directive applies in both countries, there may be differences in national implementation.
Andreas
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
Yes, we need to always say it's a guideline. I usually phrase it something like "It's not strictly forbidden by Wikipedia's rules, but it's a really bad idea because the media *will* crucify you and your client. So I think you shouldn't do it."
- d.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.
Yes, we need to always say it's a guideline. I usually phrase it something like "It's not strictly forbidden by Wikipedia's rules, but it's a really bad idea because the media *will* crucify you and your client. So I think you shouldn't do it."
Well, if the German court decision is anything to go by, you may be able to add another reason:
"And there's a chance your competitors will be able to sue you."
Andreas
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
Correct. There is a guideline on Wikipedia. It is basically advisory and for everyone: "don't get yourself into that position" is what it says. There are obvious problems with trying to enforce a guideline that depends on who people are, and at the same time avoiding outing pseudonymous editors.
Charles
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
They have you as "Wikipedia [with a "p"] UK comms organiser". is suspect we may never win that battle.
http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2010/02/27/the-wikipediawikimedia-press-cover...
I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).
I'm quite pleased by the German ruling and can't see much wrong with it.
- d.
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Stevie Benton < stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote:
Hello everyone,
PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-fo...
Basically, it's a defence of Wikipedia's editing policies quoting the CIPR and yours truly.
Do let me know if you have any comments or questions.
Thanks,
Stevie
There is a little bit of a gap between what you say, and what CIPR say.
---o0o---
"Stevie Benton responded by calling the comments 'inaccurate'.
'I don't think it's cumbersome at all,' he said. 'It's quite straightforward. It's not just PR professionals who need to abide by this, it's everyone.'"
[...]
CIPR CEO Jane Wilson added: 'I recognise that it can be a frustrating process for any organisation with inaccurate information on the site.
'Wikipedia is working on the speed and ease with which simple factual inaccuracies can be amended without compromising the strong stance on conflict. I look forward to the CIPR working with the community more closely on this.'
---o0o---
You say everything is fine, and CIPR acknowledge it can be frustrating, and that Wikipedia is working on it. ;)
I think in the long term, the latter position is the better one to take, along with doing some real work on improving the customer experience as much as it is possible within the constraints of a volunteer-run system.
Andreas
Thanks for your comments Andreas. I'm not too upset if there's an apparent gap between what I say and the CIPR say. I represent WMUK, not the CIPR. I think we are in broad agreement though, and I think you'd be happy to concede that the quotes below don't constitute the entirety of my conversation with the journalist. The second point is the one about volunteer resources. I've been observing that element of the conversations with interest and realise it's a difficult problem to solve. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for the problem at the moment and I'm willing to agree that it's a very challenging area on which to achieve a consensus (or anything approaching one).
Thanks,
Stevie
There is a little bit of a gap between what you say, and what CIPR say.
---o0o---
"Stevie Benton responded by calling the comments 'inaccurate'.
'I don't think it's cumbersome at all,' he said. 'It's quite straightforward. It's not just PR professionals who need to abide by this, it's everyone.'"
[...]
CIPR CEO Jane Wilson added: 'I recognise that it can be a frustrating process for any organisation with inaccurate information on the site.
'Wikipedia is working on the speed and ease with which simple factual inaccuracies can be amended without compromising the strong stance on conflict. I look forward to the CIPR working with the community more closely on this.'
---o0o---
You say everything is fine, and CIPR acknowledge it can be frustrating, and that Wikipedia is working on it. ;)
I think in the long term, the latter position is the better one to take, along with doing some real work on improving the customer experience as much as it is possible within the constraints of a volunteer-run system.
Andreas
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 15/11/12 12:18, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
CIPR CEO Jane Wilson added: 'I recognise that it can be a frustrating process for any organisation with inaccurate information on the site.
'Wikipedia is working on the speed and ease with which simple factual inaccuracies can be amended without compromising the strong stance on conflict. I look forward to the CIPR working with the community more closely on this.'
Can we assume that printed inaccuracies don't figure here? The Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Encyclopaedia Britannica come to mind. At least with (daily) newspapers, corrections can appear in print the next day. With Private Eye, it will take two weeks at least.
Gordo
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 15/11/12 12:18, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
CIPR CEO Jane Wilson added: 'I recognise that it can be a frustrating process for any organisation with inaccurate information on the site.
'Wikipedia is working on the speed and ease with which simple factual inaccuracies can be amended without compromising the strong stance on conflict. I look forward to the CIPR working with the community more closely on this.'
Can we assume that printed inaccuracies don't figure here? The Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Encyclopaedia Britannica come to mind. At least with (daily) newspapers, corrections can appear in print the next day. With Private Eye, it will take two weeks at least.
You cannot compare the tripe that gets put into Wikipedia with the occasional error that might slip through in Britannica or the ODB. It's worse than the worst tabloid, and that will remain so at least until Wikipedia has flagged revisions.
Andreas
On 16 November 2012 10:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 15/11/12 12:18, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
CIPR CEO Jane Wilson added: 'I recognise that it can be a frustrating process for any organisation with inaccurate information on the site.
'Wikipedia is working on the speed and ease with which simple factual inaccuracies can be amended without compromising the strong stance on conflict. I look forward to the CIPR working with the community more closely on this.'
Can we assume that printed inaccuracies don't figure here? The Oxford Dictionary of Biography and Encyclopaedia Britannica come to mind. At least with (daily) newspapers, corrections can appear in print the next day. With Private Eye, it will take two weeks at least.
You cannot compare the tripe that gets put into Wikipedia with the occasional error that might slip through in Britannica or the ODB. It's worse than the worst tabloid, and that will remain so at least until Wikipedia has flagged revisions.
Indeed the comparisons are not at all valid (neither with traditional reference works, with their infrequent updates - the ODNB does some - nor with traditional media). If they were, we would be arguing in the terms that newspapers with the largest circulations should also be the most careful with BLP material; which is not the case. So perhaps we should desist from making them.
In the future, WP will have to deal with the technical possibilities (various kinds of page protection, revision control, noindexing of pages, and "push" queues of "complaints"). One scenario is that the WMF makes those technicallly available on all its wikis, and the communities then work out the required mixture. The current situation on enWP with respect to revision control is more like a familiar "allowing the best to get in the way of the good".
Charles
On 16/11/12 10:09, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
You cannot compare the tripe that gets put into Wikipedia with the occasional error that might slip through in Britannica or the ODB. It's worse than the worst tabloid, and that will remain so at least until Wikipedia has flagged revisions.
Occasional? Whatever you say.... but in print it stays for a lot longer than most errors on Wikipedia.
Gordo
On 13 November 2012 22:14, fabian@unpopular.org.uk wrote:
I found this a bit comical: http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159206/pr-industry-blames-cumbersome-wikipedi...
Blog post: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/11/12/pr-industry-our-bad-actions-are-wi...
Note the bit where PRCA did a 180-degree pirouette from their June press release.
- d.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org