Silver seren (talk | contribs) →Credit Where Due: Reply |
Mistress Selina Kyle (talk | contribs) |
||
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
::::As you noticed just now, [[Template:Request edit]] does automatically place the article in a category to try grab attention from neutral parties, but it doesn't seem to be very used, maybe the article needs to be clearer about encouraging people to do that and encouraging other people to monitor the category more in the same way that people patrol new pages and recent edits in general --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<u>Mistress Selina Kyle</u>]] <sup>'''<span style='color:#800080;'>(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|Α⇔Ω]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|⇒✉]]'''<span style='color:#800080;'>)</span>'''</sup>'' 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC) (''[[The Wikipedia Review]]'') |
::::As you noticed just now, [[Template:Request edit]] does automatically place the article in a category to try grab attention from neutral parties, but it doesn't seem to be very used, maybe the article needs to be clearer about encouraging people to do that and encouraging other people to monitor the category more in the same way that people patrol new pages and recent edits in general --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<u>Mistress Selina Kyle</u>]] <sup>'''<span style='color:#800080;'>(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|Α⇔Ω]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|⇒✉]]'''<span style='color:#800080;'>)</span>'''</sup>'' 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC) (''[[The Wikipedia Review]]'') |
||
:::::As I told you before, King was continually promoting himself in the group, which was why he was kicked out. It's as simple as that. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
:::::As I told you before, King was continually promoting himself in the group, which was why he was kicked out. It's as simple as that. <font color="silver">[[User:Silver seren|Silver]]</font><font color="blue">[[User talk:Silver seren|seren]]</font><sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
::::::[http://www.facebook.com/David44357 David King] ([[user:King4057]] here) was "promoting" in what way? Like this stuff by the rest? |
|||
::::::#"A few weeks ago I posted about a survey I’m conducting sponsored by Page Center _link_" |
|||
::::::#"Ya'll will be interested in this guest post on my blog _link_" |
|||
::::::#"Jack O'Dwyer: Here's an excellent historical column .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_" |
|||
::::::#"Robert Lawton: I think this is an excellent summary of the current state of affairs: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia by Gerard F. Corbett _link_ — Gerard Francis Corbett likes this." |
|||
::::::#"Jack O'Dwyer: A PR problem is confronting the PR industry .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_" |
|||
::::::#"Blog by the CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, updating on our progress _link_" |
|||
::::::#"Jack O'Dwyer: Here's my blog today _link_" |
|||
::::::#"I interviewed ... _link_" |
|||
::::::#"Jack O'Dwyer: I'm urging the PR Society.. _link_" |
|||
::::::#"Phil Gomes: Phil Gomes' Thoughts _link:_" |
|||
::::::#"Jack O'Dwyer: ...Here is a link to my blog" |
|||
::::::#"Some of my own thoughts _link_" |
|||
::::::[http://facebook.com/claireatwaves Claire Thompson] seems to have it spot on: |
|||
{{quotebox|width=600px|align=center|fontsize=90%|quote=The phrasing of that piece makes me want to step outside of this group. "One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on Fortune 100 companies. Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles." It sounds hugely self serving and probably explains why people view PRs as a bunch of paymaster's puppets, which is exactly why a source like Wikipedia is so needed and so valuable. I've always believed that the first principle of PR is working out what motivates the people you want to influence and find the thing that lets everyone win. By trying to 'win' without giving anything away, I don't think you/we have a cat in Hell's chance of doing anything other than getting Wikipedia to dig in its heels}} |
|||
::::::Then we get lovely stuff like this earlier on before it swung into "lets show our best face for the Wikipedians" mode: |
|||
:::::::"Robert Lawton: ''Those who follow the rules don't get noticed.'' 3 February at 14:31 · 5 Likes: Jeff Taylor, New Media Strategies — Adam Harris Berkowitz, NYU — Fred Bauder, Crestone, Colorado <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[user:Fred Bauder|who should know better]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> — Kris Gallagher, Northwestern University — John Cass, Boston, Massachusetts"<br> |
|||
:::::::Then in reply, [[user:King4057|David King]] who you banned said: "''I have a PPT slide I call "the wall of shame" with about 20 major brands who have all been busted for inappropriate censorship on Wikipedia. My experience has been almost every PR person breaks the rules, but most of the time for disclosure, puffery, etc. and not for censorship. The Wikiproject outlines a major PR agency that censored their clients' executive fraud scandal. It's more common than you think and the volunteer community is extremely forgiving. Almost every client I get has some kind of history of trying to do it themselves, but not following the rules.''" 3 February at 18:27 |
|||
::::::Claire Thompson's comment "''There seems to be a time delay between stuff being written and appearing in this forum"'' again gives the impression this was a political thing. David King's posts seem to have disappeared after posting [http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2012/02/wikipedia-for-marketers-the-last-word this article encouraging PR people to act GENUINELY ethically by Wikipedia's policies], and I notice he linked to [[wp:PSCOI]] a few times too. I scoured down to the posts from nearer the creation of the group before things started to be cleaned up for PR, you were sloppy... --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<u>Mistress Selina Kyle</u>]] <sup>'''<span style='color:#800080;'>(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|Α⇔Ω]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|⇒✉]]'''<span style='color:#800080;'>)</span>'''</sup>'' (''[[The Wikipedia Review]]'' — no affiliation to DK [https://wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mistress_Selina_Kyle?diff=prev&oldid=476468660 or GK], by the way, we are just more open to varied viewpoints.) |
Revision as of 21:53, 17 February 2012
Wikipedia Project‑class | |||||||
|
Media Project‑class | ||||||||||||||
|
For CREWE members
I'd love to hear your feedback on the article. A reminder to keep editing within our WP:COI guidelines and to remain neutral while providing good, independent, reliable sources. If any editors with a conflict of interest in this area would like to make changes, I'd be happy to review them. Or, perhaps we should have a conversation about whether editing this article directly is appropriate. One final reminder, this talk page is not a general discussion page for the topic of paid editing. There are other places for that such as WP:WikiProject Cooperation's Talk page. Please keep it civil; we share a common goal I believe, even if reaching it will require some back and forth. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- It's pretty neat to see my own blog post cited on Wikipedia, but I wonder if we couldn't make it more clear that the Wikiproject and CREWE are two separate initiatives. The PRSA defines CREWE as a lobbying effort to make Wikipedia more accepting of direct edits by PR people. This is VERY different from the Wikiproject. I wouldn't want the reader to think the Wikiproject is "CREWE on Wikipedia". Not that it says as much now, but just think we could add clarity. The Wikiproject was started as a result of criticisms of WBToo's editing and as a response to the paid editing watch. These two events happened to coincide during the same time period. King4057 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- It is neat. I honestly didn't know Social Fresh was your blog... Do you think it qualifies as a reliable source? An independent one? This is a good test-case for our Verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. Two, how do you think we could make the distinction between CREWE and WikiProject collaboration more clear. Would just adding the word separate before WikiProject be sufficient? Ocaasi t | c 03:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- How's this?
- "Around the same time CREWE was started, a separate initiative called Wikiproject Cooperation was founded on Wikipedia[12] to provide education, oversight and collaboration to opt-in paid editors.[13] [Can we cite the Wikiproject itself as a reference?] It includes a help page, links to documentation and instructions for companies looking to make factual corrections.[12]
- I think this text also makes it comply with timeless language, avoiding quotes and avoids using opinionated language like "useful" (I happen to believe they are, but...).
- This statement isn't "likely to be challenged" and no longer includes quotes (see When a reliable source is required). It is also not a self-published weblog and this post demonstrates a good personal record for fact-checking. Since there is no policy for Blogs as Sources I think it does qualify, though I am surprising myself by saying so. It turns out there's a few Wikipedia articles that also cite SocialFresh articles. I guess one of the transformations that impacts Wikipedia is that many blogs are more reliable (and even more well-read) than mainstream media. King4057 (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I should disclose I have a ridiculous COI. I'm the author of the blog post, a member of the Wikiproject, a rudely ejected former member of CREWE and I would like to distance the Wikiproject from association with lobbying efforts for direct editing. COI x10. King4057 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry to hear that you clashed with CREWE. I suppose, since I joined CREWE shortly after I wrote this article, that I too now have a conflict of interest. I suppose I get a little more leeway as a long-time non-COI editor. I updated the sentence to read: Around the same time CREWE was created, a separate group on Wikipedia called WikiProject Cooperation[15] was started to provide education, oversight, assistance, and collaboration to paid editors. I think that works. What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 06:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Notability
How exactly does this come anywhere near meeting WP:GNG? The only independent source providing significant coverage is the Forbes article, but that isn't sufficient for a stand alone article. It seems more sensible to me, to create a paid editing of wikipedia article (or something like that) instead. That would also allow us to remove some of the undue content in Bell Pottinger and Portland Communications. SmartSE (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Forbes, Techrepublic, and Prweek.com are solid. Socialfresh and OdwyerPR are industry sites. I accept that it's notability is not ironclad, but I think it meets the minimal bar and should improve over time as well. I'd like to get others opinions about that, if you aren't persuaded. If you have a serious problem with it, feel free to AfD and we'll talk it through there. Worst case scenario I just stick it in my userspace and wait to see if more press comes up. I do agree that a paid editing of wikipedia article is an excellent idea and long overdue. Ocaasi t | c 17:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's something that we at least need to wait on. All of the coverage occurred within the past two weeks. That makes it likely more is to come soon. Waiting a few more weeks before merging or AfDing or whatever won't hurt anything. SilverserenC 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Credit Where Due
{{Request edit}}
Glad this is up here.
One nit. I only built the CREWE page and gave it its nifty, pun-compatible acronym. Credit for the idea to make a public space on Facebook goes to John Cass, director of marketing, NewLogic, Inc. --12.176.230.9 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Phil, that you? Per usual, we're gonna need some sort of reference for that. SilverserenC 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Eeeek. Sorry. Thought I was signed in. Was indeed me.
- Reference is in the Jan. 13, 2012, interview on For Immediate Release at " time-index 6'49. --Philgomes (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Updated. Ocaasi t | c 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you believe in ethical editing rather than pressuring as people have been saying, why did you kick King out as he mentioned at the top of this talk page, when he's probably the most well known for actually trying to engage with Wikipedia (such as he got a lot of attacks from some people) from the start - way before CREWE...
- Updated. Ocaasi t | c 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- wp:Conflict of Interest does explain things pretty concisely, I'm not sure how it can really be misunderstood?
- As you noticed just now, Template:Request edit does automatically place the article in a category to try grab attention from neutral parties, but it doesn't seem to be very used, maybe the article needs to be clearer about encouraging people to do that and encouraging other people to monitor the category more in the same way that people patrol new pages and recent edits in general --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC) (The Wikipedia Review)
- As I told you before, King was continually promoting himself in the group, which was why he was kicked out. It's as simple as that. SilverserenC 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- David King (user:King4057 here) was "promoting" in what way? Like this stuff by the rest?
- "A few weeks ago I posted about a survey I’m conducting sponsored by Page Center _link_"
- "Ya'll will be interested in this guest post on my blog _link_"
- "Jack O'Dwyer: Here's an excellent historical column .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_"
- "Robert Lawton: I think this is an excellent summary of the current state of affairs: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia by Gerard F. Corbett _link_ — Gerard Francis Corbett likes this."
- "Jack O'Dwyer: A PR problem is confronting the PR industry .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_"
- "Blog by the CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, updating on our progress _link_"
- "Jack O'Dwyer: Here's my blog today _link_"
- "I interviewed ... _link_"
- "Jack O'Dwyer: I'm urging the PR Society.. _link_"
- "Phil Gomes: Phil Gomes' Thoughts _link:_"
- "Jack O'Dwyer: ...Here is a link to my blog"
- "Some of my own thoughts _link_"
- David King (user:King4057 here) was "promoting" in what way? Like this stuff by the rest?
- As I told you before, King was continually promoting himself in the group, which was why he was kicked out. It's as simple as that. SilverserenC 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- As you noticed just now, Template:Request edit does automatically place the article in a category to try grab attention from neutral parties, but it doesn't seem to be very used, maybe the article needs to be clearer about encouraging people to do that and encouraging other people to monitor the category more in the same way that people patrol new pages and recent edits in general --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC) (The Wikipedia Review)
- Claire Thompson seems to have it spot on:
The phrasing of that piece makes me want to step outside of this group. "One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on Fortune 100 companies. Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles." It sounds hugely self serving and probably explains why people view PRs as a bunch of paymaster's puppets, which is exactly why a source like Wikipedia is so needed and so valuable. I've always believed that the first principle of PR is working out what motivates the people you want to influence and find the thing that lets everyone win. By trying to 'win' without giving anything away, I don't think you/we have a cat in Hell's chance of doing anything other than getting Wikipedia to dig in its heels
- Then we get lovely stuff like this earlier on before it swung into "lets show our best face for the Wikipedians" mode:
- "Robert Lawton: Those who follow the rules don't get noticed. 3 February at 14:31 · 5 Likes: Jeff Taylor, New Media Strategies — Adam Harris Berkowitz, NYU — Fred Bauder, Crestone, Colorado [who should know better] — Kris Gallagher, Northwestern University — John Cass, Boston, Massachusetts"
- "Robert Lawton: Those who follow the rules don't get noticed. 3 February at 14:31 · 5 Likes: Jeff Taylor, New Media Strategies — Adam Harris Berkowitz, NYU — Fred Bauder, Crestone, Colorado [who should know better] — Kris Gallagher, Northwestern University — John Cass, Boston, Massachusetts"
- Then in reply, David King who you banned said: "I have a PPT slide I call "the wall of shame" with about 20 major brands who have all been busted for inappropriate censorship on Wikipedia. My experience has been almost every PR person breaks the rules, but most of the time for disclosure, puffery, etc. and not for censorship. The Wikiproject outlines a major PR agency that censored their clients' executive fraud scandal. It's more common than you think and the volunteer community is extremely forgiving. Almost every client I get has some kind of history of trying to do it themselves, but not following the rules." 3 February at 18:27
- Claire Thompson's comment "There seems to be a time delay between stuff being written and appearing in this forum" again gives the impression this was a political thing. David King's posts seem to have disappeared after posting this article encouraging PR people to act GENUINELY ethically by Wikipedia's policies, and I notice he linked to wp:PSCOI a few times too. I scoured down to the posts from nearer the creation of the group before things started to be cleaned up for PR, you were sloppy... --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) (The Wikipedia Review — no affiliation to DK or GK, by the way, we are just more open to varied viewpoints.)