[WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising. I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic. The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out if you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and your client's name are mud. Because in all our experience, even sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI, but will understand generating *bad* PR. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
One of those would be me :) A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night). If your interested in helping out with the dialogue that would rock :) Tom On 29 March 2012 09:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising. I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic. The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out if you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and your client's name are mud. Because in all our experience, even sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI, but will understand generating *bad* PR. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 29 March 2012 09:57, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: One of those would be me :) A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night). If your interested in helping out with the dialogue that would rock :) I've just blogged about this too: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/03/29/the-public-relations-agency-problem/ I'm hoping that will circulate slightly in the PR sphere. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
I do disagree with the idea though, FWIW. It feels much akin to a threat :) We also (reading that blog post) disagree on a few other aspects as well. Which is why I am eager to see input from a broad swathe of Wikipedians on these issues. Tom On 29 March 2012 10:17, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 29 March 2012 09:57, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: One of those would be me :) A suggestion I picked up on was to have a joint session with Wikipedians individuals from CREWE where we could have an actual dialogue (I sent an email to Daria about getting assistance for this last night). If your interested in helping out with the dialogue that would rock :) I've just blogged about this too: http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2012/03/29/the-public-relations-agency-problem/ I'm hoping that will circulate slightly in the PR sphere. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 29 March 2012 10:20, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: I do disagree with the idea though, FWIW. It feels much akin to a threat :) It's not a threat from us, it's saying you don't want what happened to Bell Pottinger to happen to you. I'm surprised to see (repeatedly) that the press and public get much more upset about this stuff than Wikipedians do. I do see your point, though. I'll amend the post a bit. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
I've written an essay incorporating some of the ideas expressed here by David, Carcharoth, Charles and myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADAM I've also posted a link to the essay on WT:BLP, and suggested that it might be helpful to get the no eventualism principle anchored more firmly in BLP policy. Could we continue that part of the discussion there? Andreas On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.comwrote: On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: No eventualism is one principle that I would like to see spelled out in BLP policy, in the Writing style section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style People do tend to treat biographies like a research pad for all the things that an author might justifiably want to include in a five-volume, 2,000-page biography. The problem is, the other 1,999 pages never turn up, leaving something – often something trivial, titillating, or unflattering – that might be worthy of mention on page 1,547 as the biography's main point. That's a good point. I recently edited a BLP to help clean it up, and was struck by two points: 1) It was difficult to know where to start and when to stop, as there is a need to not leave a BLP in a half-finished state, even if you are stubbing it down and slowly expanding, as even slow expansion can still leave it somewhat skewed and looking 'unfinished' (even if better than before). Those making subsequent additions need to bear that in mind as well. 2) If no-one else has written substantially about that person, it is a very uncomfortable feeling that you might be the first person to be doing that, and you start to wonder what right *anyone* has to write about a living person without working with that person to make sure it is accurate. This veers into the realm of discussing authorised and unauthorised biographies. Doing an unauthorised biography of a famous person and getting it published can make the author money, and most publishing firms will only publish if it is accurate and non-libellous. But doing short pages on non-notable or borderline notable people is something entirely different, and the motivations are often entirely different. Motivation is something that should be looked at as well. In my case, the articles are people working in science and that interests me. But is that enough of a reason? What about someone who wants to write about the leader of some small obscure country on the other side of the world? (And then you have the classic case of the motivation being to do a hatchet job on someone). Sure, the mantra is to use reliable sources and be faithful to the sources, but it is still very different (and difficult) writing about a living person who can (in theory) turn up and object to what has been written. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement.Here's the Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ I see a pile of Wikimedians engaging with them, which is promising. I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic. The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out if you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and your client's name are mud. Because in all our experience, even sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI, but will understand generating *bad* PR. - d. Yes, good point. Newt's communications director, who edited his and Callista's article did not do much, and did try in good faith to disclose his interest and follow our guidelines once he became aware of them, but by then the damage had been done and he was exposed. Compared to some of the really nasty PR editing I've seen he did nothing. Big mainstream media plays a major role. If conflict of interest editing becomes a story on the evening news there is nothing we or the PR person can do. They're toast, responsible editing and disclosure or not. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 29 March 2012 09:52, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: I visited WMUK on Tuesday and chatted with Stevie Benton (the new media person), Richard Symonds and Daria Cybulska about this topic. The approach we could think of that could *work* is pointing out if you're caught with *what other people* think is a COI, your name and your client's name are mud. Because in all our experience, even sincere PR people seem biologically incapable of understanding COI, but will understand generating *bad* PR. It would certainly be useful to have an agreed approach from our side. What even might work? Our natural sort of starting point would be FAQ-like, but that probably doesn't fit the bill. Neither would a simple set of instructions, given that COI speaks to intention first. I noticed that in the Bell Pottinger meltdown Lord Bell switched from saying that the PR operatives had not actually broken the law (i.e. minimalist on professional ethics), to a line that WP was really just too complicated and fussy about it all. The latter is only convincing in the absence of figures on the hourly rate being charged for whitewashing. Almost by definition, service industries thrive on the principle that they can charge for doing a good job: we mostly prefer not to cut our own hair. I would guess that there is scope for presenting case studies, abstracted from real things that have happened onsite. There must be a whole spectrum of situations and outcomes by now. Where the punchline is and the media had a field day with the story, I think you're quite correct, it becomes quite convincing that whatever the client was charged was too much. Charles There is an article which started out as Paid editing on Wikipedia and is now Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia It seems to be quite a success judging from the number of links to it. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles
I've been skimming the arguments on this matter and I'm trying to get a handle on it. One thing I don't understand is why Mr. Hawkins feels so aggrieved. Everyone is talking in abstract principles but I haven't seen where someone details what specific wrongs have been done to Mr. Hawkins. Not an abstract violation of an asserted right to not have an article, but actual publishing of incorrect or defamatory information. This is a case of someone we've done specific wrong using Wikipedia: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/she-was-a-librarian-but-the-internet-said-otherwise/. Have we done something similar to Hawkins? From the AFD I read that one particular editor appears to have a particular interest in Mr. Hawkins that allegedly crosses the bounds of propriety. I don't know if these allegations are true or not, so I won't repeat them in detail here, but if they are true, and an editor or editors violates policies and crosses lines in zealous pursuit of, shall we say, overdocumenting a BLP, can't this matter be dealt with by enforcing existing policies on article content and editor behavior? One allegation is that this editor wanted to file the UK equivalent of a FOIA request to unearth records about Hawkins. Isn't this simply prohibited by OR? Can't we just trout slap someone who suggests this and be done with it? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 29 March 2012 15:38, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: I noticed that in the Bell Pottinger meltdown Lord Bell switched from saying that the PR operatives had not actually broken the law (i.e. minimalist on professional ethics), to a line that WP was really just too complicated and fussy about it all. The latter is only convincing in the absence of figures on the hourly rate being charged for whitewashing. Almost by definition, service industries thrive on the principle that they can charge for doing a good job: we mostly prefer not to cut our own hair. In the Bell Pottinger incident, Wikipedians and even Jimbo may have fussed - but it was the press who really took them to the cleaners. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement
On 29 March 2012 15:38, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: It would certainly be useful to have an agreed approach from our side. What even might work? Our natural sort of starting point would be FAQ-like, but that probably doesn't fit the bill. Neither would a simple set of instructions, given that COI speaks to intention first. I chatted to Steve Virgin about this today. He's been working his arse off getting PR stuff set up for Monmouthpedia, and talking to PR professionals about WIkipedia, and talking to PR professionals about Monmouthpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/MonmouthpediA/Public_Relations More generally, he's been talking to serious PR people who are actually sensible about how to deal with Wikipedia. It turns out the good PRs really are sick of the idiot PRs. So the liaison will involve a bit of the good people on each side apologising for the bad ones ... Monmouthpedia has the potential to be HUGE in the news, because frankly every little town in the world will want to do something like it - WMUK is getting inquiries already. It will also be an interesting way to recruit new Wikipedians. Of course, then we have to think about what will happen when they meet the worst of the present community ... it's all fun. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
