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