Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
Hello everyone, PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 r...@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.j...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
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 a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Operation Cowboy: OpenStreetMap editathon in London
Hi Katherine, Five minutes with someone via Skype or in person is worth five hours of trying to figure it out. Once you know what is required then its easier than Wikipedia. Roger On 14 November 2012 15:39, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: I can offer training in OSM editing, using the JOSM tool, if that's needed. On 14 November 2012 14:46, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: I recently sat down and figured it out myself, for what it's worth, but it took quite a few hours of hmm, is this what I'm meant to do?. Documentation (especially on editorial decisions) is often sparser than on Wikipedia, so it's easier to feel a bit lost as to what you're meant to be doing and whether you should code something as A, B or C. It feels a bit to me like Wikipedia in 2005-6 - you can figure out what you're doing with a bit of effort, but you're never quite sure how it's going or if someone else approves. - Andrew. On Wednesday, 14 November 2012, Katherine Bavage wrote: Sadly I'm not in London that weekend :( However, as I said on Sunday Tom, I'm a n00b with OSM stuff but I'd like to be able to log in for an hour or two and do my part remotely. Is this really feasible i..e to 'learn how to map' if you're not there? If not, no worries, I don't doubt this will be a success and I'd be keen to help/join another event in future! Kat On 12 November 2012 15:30, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote: Over the last day or so, I've been working on putting together a new event in London, Operation Cowboy. The plan is for it to be the weekend after next, which is very soon, I know. http://lanyrd.com/2012/cowboy-london/ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/London_OPC2012 Operation Cowboy is a plan for an all-night OpenStreetMap editathon (mapathon!) focussed around improving OpenStreetMap for the United States, an area OpenStreetMap is known to be not quite so good (compare San Francisco with London: on OpenStreetMap, damn near every pub, bar and shop in central London is on the map, in San Francisco, it's not nearly as good). Though the best mapping we can do generally involves getting a GPS out and walking or cycling the streets yourself, there's plenty of work that can be done to improve OSM from your armchair. You can read more about Operation Cowboy at: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Operation_Cowboy Part of the point of the Operation Cowboy event is to be a place where Wikimedians and others who haven't played around with OpenStreetMap and want to learn can come along, learn how to set up an account and start editing. Though we'll use the US as the focus of the event, the skills people learn improving the US map will be applicable to improving the map for their local area in the UK. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- *Katherine Bavage * *Fundraising Manager * *Wikimedia UK* +44 20 7065 0949 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.* -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Roger Bamkin Victuallers Ltd 01332 702993 0758 2020815 Google+:Victuallers Skype:Victuallers1 Flickr:Victuallers2 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett a...@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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
Do you think that's a bad thing Andy? On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett a...@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.ben...@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 a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
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.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Do you think that's a bad thing Andy? On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett a...@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.ben...@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 a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK:
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
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.tho...@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.ben...@wikimedia.org.ukwrote: Do you think that's a bad thing Andy? On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett a...@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.ben...@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 a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org -- Stevie Benton
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Doug Weller dougwel...@gmail.com wrote: It isn't a terribly rewarding role and burnout is common. Triage won't solve the problem as there are so many complaints that aren't simple to deal with satisfactorily, and we already have a system in place for it which may creak but works better than nothing. Recruitment isn't easy because it isn't something many Wikipedians really want to do. Pending changes would probably help a lot but many editors have no idea of what OTRS do and those who do probably don't understand the scale of the problem or the consequences of not dealing firmly with it. Doug I agree Pending Changes or Flagged Revisions would help, along with an on-wiki venue where people would be guaranteed a response within 24 hours. Pending changes would cut out a lot of the silly stuff, like those examples SmartSE gave. An on-wiki venue with a good response time would reduce OTRS workload, increase transparency, and reduce complaints that the process is cumbersome. If you look at the CIPR draft best practice guidelines (which are not of course Wikipedia policy at the moment, but are quite similar to Jimbo's bright line rule) http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR#A_Step-by-Step_Guide:_How_to_improve_articles you'll see that point 3 begins: If there is no response ..., and point 4 likewise begins, If you get no response. The process also requires people to look through the contributions history to find and contact editors who worked on the article if they don't get a response on the talk page. That *is* cumbersome, and using a central on-wiki noticeboard would improve customer satisfaction. Andreas ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@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_and_notes 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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
Thanks for sending this over Andreas. I'll raise it with the Trustees for discussion. Stevie On 15 November 2012 12:09, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Andy Mabbett a...@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_and_notes 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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@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-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
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.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Do you think that's a bad thing Andy? On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett a...@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.ben...@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 a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
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 pigsotw...@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.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Do you think that's a bad thing Andy? On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett a...@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.ben...@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 a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: On 15 November 2012 10:09, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-following-finsbury-clean-up/ 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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@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
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
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 wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On 15 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If you look at the CIPR draft best practice guidelines (which are not of course Wikipedia policy at the moment, but are quite similar to Jimbo's bright line rule) http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR#A_Step-by-Step_Guide:_How_to_improve_articles you'll see that point 3 begins: If there is no response ..., and point 4 likewise begins, If you get no response. The process also requires people to look through the contributions history to find and contact editors who worked on the article if they don't get a response on the talk page. That *is* cumbersome, and using a central on-wiki noticeboard would improve customer satisfaction. Andreas, the customer on Wikipedia is the reader. And forgetting that leads to a confusion of contact Wikipedia with complaints service. Readers and editors play different roles in the system. We need to keep clear the distinction. (Even if the mechanism for contacting WP could do with tweaking, we still need to be clear that the reader matters.) Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett a...@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-coverage-bingo-card/ 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. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett a...@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. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 15 November 2012 11:44, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@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. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
We have two customers, and one employee role, I think. And it should go something like (in order of importance): Reader (Customer) Subject (Customer) Editor (Employee) Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they should reasonably expect to receive a good service from us. Tom On 15 November 2012 12:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 15 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If you look at the CIPR draft best practice guidelines (which are not of course Wikipedia policy at the moment, but are quite similar to Jimbo's bright line rule) http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR#A_Step-by-Step_Guide:_How_to_improve_articles you'll see that point 3 begins: If there is no response ..., and point 4 likewise begins, If you get no response. The process also requires people to look through the contributions history to find and contact editors who worked on the article if they don't get a response on the talk page. That *is* cumbersome, and using a central on-wiki noticeboard would improve customer satisfaction. Andreas, the customer on Wikipedia is the reader. And forgetting that leads to a confusion of contact Wikipedia with complaints service. Readers and editors play different roles in the system. We need to keep clear the distinction. (Even if the mechanism for contacting WP could do with tweaking, we still need to be clear that the reader matters.) Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
Tom , I think that's a fair comment - but we have the problem that we can't actually employ anyone to provide that service. An an OTRS volunteer yourself, do you have any suggestions on how we can bring more people into the fold? It doesn't seem to be something we can reasonably incentivise, either. It's something of a quandary! Stevie On 15 November 2012 14:10, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: We have two customers, and one employee role, I think. And it should go something like (in order of importance): Reader (Customer) Subject (Customer) Editor (Employee) Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they should reasonably expect to receive a good service from us. Tom On 15 November 2012 12:32, Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: On 15 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: If you look at the CIPR draft best practice guidelines (which are not of course Wikipedia policy at the moment, but are quite similar to Jimbo's bright line rule) http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR#A_Step-by-Step_Guide:_How_to_improve_articles you'll see that point 3 begins: If there is no response ..., and point 4 likewise begins, If you get no response. The process also requires people to look through the contributions history to find and contact editors who worked on the article if they don't get a response on the talk page. That *is* cumbersome, and using a central on-wiki noticeboard would improve customer satisfaction. Andreas, the customer on Wikipedia is the reader. And forgetting that leads to a confusion of contact Wikipedia with complaints service. Readers and editors play different roles in the system. We need to keep clear the distinction. (Even if the mechanism for contacting WP could do with tweaking, we still need to be clear that the reader matters.) Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@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 wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:06 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett a...@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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote: Tom , I think that's a fair comment - but we have the problem that we can't actually employ anyone to provide that service. An an OTRS volunteer yourself, do you have any suggestions on how we can bring more people into the fold? It doesn't seem to be something we can reasonably incentivise, either. It's something of a quandary! Stevie More OTRS volunteers would help, but in a situation like this it's more important to think about problem prevention than about increasing the number of people fixing problems. That means things like flagged revisions, to prevent malicious edits from ever being seen by readers and subjects, and providing a responsive service on-wiki to fix whatever does slip through, so people have no need to come running to OTRS. Andreas On 15 November 2012 14:10, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.comwrote: We have two customers, and one employee role, I think. And it should go something like (in order of importance): Reader (Customer) Subject (Customer) Editor (Employee) Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they should reasonably expect to receive a good service from us. Tom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
On 15 November 2012 12:26, Stevie Benton stevie.ben...@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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)
On 15 November 2012 14:10, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com wrote: We have two customers, and one employee role, I think. And it should go something like (in order of importance): Reader (Customer) Subject (Customer) Editor (Employee) Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they should reasonably expect to receive a good service from us. No, that assumes what needs to be proved. This thread arose because the readers' interests were damaged by PR editing. PR folk should only be charging for a service they can actually deliver. If they can't edit properly, within NPOV and all that implies, they have no right to be on WP, and they also have no right to ask for money from clients for alleged services they can render. And you can call the attitude if the guidelines are inconvenient we can game them many things, but professional is not one of them. If PR folk wish to have any status as professional representatives of individuals or organisations, it must be on our terms, and they must respect, at a bare minimum, the mission of the site and the terms of use. From my experience, subjects of BLP would to better to hire a lawyer, who would at least understand some of that. Charles ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Two customers!
Hi all, I do not think it is particularly useful to look at these issues of customers and employees with all the vexatious legal hoo-haa that that involves. Wikipedia works as a community gathered around a social goal. A reader is an editor who has not made their first edit, a window shopper, a Man Friday who has yet to leave a foot print in the sand. A subject is a living person. We need suitable processes for ensuring that all biographies of living people are handled appropriately. Companies are legal fictions, and although we do not cover them quite as well as filmic and televisual fictions, this may be because wikipedians find them less interesting. If people find them such dull topics that no-one cares to prioritise updating their information, it is no good PR companies moaning. They should wake up to the fact that one of the reasons no-one does their role gratis is that it is completely thankless. Perhaps they should also remind themselves that Wikipedia became the sixth most popular website on the planet without their help. Then they should cut themselves some slack and edit some pages connected to one of their hobbies. Then they might learn to be less obsessive . . . or perhaps more obsessive, but about something more interesting. all the best User:Leutha -- Message: 6 Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:10:22 + From: Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com To: UK Wikimedia mailing list wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe) Message-ID: cako2h7_9riysr9ktfijqozdf46wvcotyho7dgxmzrafq2zg...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 We have two customers, and one employee role, I think. And it should go something like (in order of importance): Reader (Customer) Subject (Customer) Editor (Employee) Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they should reasonably expect to receive a good service from us. Tom ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia
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 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
