Samwalton9 (talk | contribs) →Agree in part, disagree in part: It even has typos |
→Agree in part, disagree in part: Comment |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
# - I liked the other version. Not much for signing on for 'demands' like these ones. [[User:Panyd|Panyd]]<sup>[[User talk:Panyd|The muffin is not subtle]]</sup> 15:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
# - I liked the other version. Not much for signing on for 'demands' like these ones. [[User:Panyd|Panyd]]<sup>[[User talk:Panyd|The muffin is not subtle]]</sup> 15:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
# - I think a "demand" type letter is going to be scoffed at. Unfortunately, not much that we "demand" will have any authority - it would have to come from their good graces, or at least public pressure (money and hurting sales talk - check out United Airlines). I would write an open letter to all companies looking at Wikipedia as free advertising. I work in marketing, and I can't tell you how many times I hear people refer to Wikipedia as "free marketing". This is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these companies should be thinking of it as that - it may help with general market awareness, but it should not be used as marketing or promotional material. But what punitive measures do we as a community have to enforce this? Short of individual blocks I'm not sure there is much we can do, with the current state of things. But perhaps an open letter to the public, relating how this may be similar to the "fake news" phenomena (not trying to get too political) - if every company tried something like this we would have quite a problem on our hands. [[User:Garchy|Garchy]] ([[User talk:Garchy|talk]]) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
# - I think a "demand" type letter is going to be scoffed at. Unfortunately, not much that we "demand" will have any authority - it would have to come from their good graces, or at least public pressure (money and hurting sales talk - check out United Airlines). I would write an open letter to all companies looking at Wikipedia as free advertising. I work in marketing, and I can't tell you how many times I hear people refer to Wikipedia as "free marketing". This is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these companies should be thinking of it as that - it may help with general market awareness, but it should not be used as marketing or promotional material. But what punitive measures do we as a community have to enforce this? Short of individual blocks I'm not sure there is much we can do, with the current state of things. But perhaps an open letter to the public, relating how this may be similar to the "fake news" phenomena (not trying to get too political) - if every company tried something like this we would have quite a problem on our hands. [[User:Garchy|Garchy]] ([[User talk:Garchy|talk]]) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
# - I was going to add my support to {{u|Collect}}'s comment. I think what Burger King did was really dumb, and I think it's a shame that news reports have focused rather heavily on the Google Home angle, and very little on the Wikipedia angle. Recognizing the dumbness of BK in part, The Verge decided to tweak them. It was dumb, but not done for self-gain in the same way. I also wish there had been a slightly longer comment period, as I believe the letter would have been stronger if focused solely on BK. Anyway, I still think this deserves more attention, so put me down as somewhat supportive. [[User:WWB|WWB]] ([[User talk:WWB|talk]]) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
|||
I am sorry but I moved these sections from the open letter page to here. It's very clear that we couldn't do a community-wide RfC on this matter in a short enough time to make any difference, so this just has to be an open letter from those who want to express a consistent opinion on the matter. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
I am sorry but I moved these sections from the open letter page to here. It's very clear that we couldn't do a community-wide RfC on this matter in a short enough time to make any difference, so this just has to be an open letter from those who want to express a consistent opinion on the matter. [[User:Smallbones|Smallbones]]<sub>(<font color="cc6600">[[User talk:Smallbones|smalltalk]]</font>)</sub> 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:31, 18 April 2017
Opposed by
Agree in part, disagree in part
- - Noting that BK had a fiasco, but making these "demands" is puerile and not something I would wish to be associated with. All that is rational is that BK and other companies note that using Wikipedia as part of an advertising campaign is unwise. Collect (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- - I liked the other version. Not much for signing on for 'demands' like these ones. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- - I think a "demand" type letter is going to be scoffed at. Unfortunately, not much that we "demand" will have any authority - it would have to come from their good graces, or at least public pressure (money and hurting sales talk - check out United Airlines). I would write an open letter to all companies looking at Wikipedia as free advertising. I work in marketing, and I can't tell you how many times I hear people refer to Wikipedia as "free marketing". This is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these companies should be thinking of it as that - it may help with general market awareness, but it should not be used as marketing or promotional material. But what punitive measures do we as a community have to enforce this? Short of individual blocks I'm not sure there is much we can do, with the current state of things. But perhaps an open letter to the public, relating how this may be similar to the "fake news" phenomena (not trying to get too political) - if every company tried something like this we would have quite a problem on our hands. Garchy (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- - I was going to add my support to Collect's comment. I think what Burger King did was really dumb, and I think it's a shame that news reports have focused rather heavily on the Google Home angle, and very little on the Wikipedia angle. Recognizing the dumbness of BK in part, The Verge decided to tweak them. It was dumb, but not done for self-gain in the same way. I also wish there had been a slightly longer comment period, as I believe the letter would have been stronger if focused solely on BK. Anyway, I still think this deserves more attention, so put me down as somewhat supportive. WWB (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I am sorry but I moved these sections from the open letter page to here. It's very clear that we couldn't do a community-wide RfC on this matter in a short enough time to make any difference, so this just has to be an open letter from those who want to express a consistent opinion on the matter. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Concur with the above. Disappointed that you felt so rushed on this that you sent it with 9 signatories and substantial numbers of Wikipedians asking you to please not. Sam Walton (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- It even still has typos in it... "Wikipedia's content is managed by unpaid volunteer supported by Wikimedia Foundation" Sam Walton (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Home invasion
"That campaign strikes us as a form of home invasion". Is this part appropriate? Or maybe it could be reworded. It may perhaps also be misplaced, as it appears before our COI and policy concerns. Thanks, —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- It should be removed, as it's so over-the-top that it reduces our very serious concerns about this ad campaign. If/when this is removed, ping me and I'll add my signature. This is a very serious issue and needs to be nipped in the bud. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation may wish to go after Burger King for violation of our Terms of Use. For once, the people violating the ToU have deep pockets and a lawsuit would likely be both preventative and self-funding. ~ Rob13Talk 19:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Have toned it down a bit. I have no problem with organizations using WP within their advertising. My concern is when organizations alter WP text first and than use it in their advertising. The later makes it sound like an independent source is speaking positively about them and is thus misleading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. It would be interesting to find out if the Federal Trade Commission would agree this is misleading advertising. ~ Rob13Talk 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Have toned it down a bit. I have no problem with organizations using WP within their advertising. My concern is when organizations alter WP text first and than use it in their advertising. The later makes it sound like an independent source is speaking positively about them and is thus misleading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
What are the penalties?
An open letter is a positive start (and thank you for drafting it, Smallbones), but I believe more should be done. When a company with a market value of over $6 billion abuses Wikipedia for promotional purposes, I think we need to at least consider measures that are more drastic than a slap on the wrist. For instance, a notice at the top of Burger King and Whopper explaining that Burger King employees have attempted to influence the articles might just be suitably embarrassing to convince the company this was a bad idea. ~ Rob13Talk 20:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I will not and can not support a project that openly considers
drasticpunishments to single out certain companies to make a point. And what position are we in (a group of anonymous volunteers) to make demands of corporations? For all we know some executives of MacDonald's (or other Burger King competitors) could have been involved in this. Why should we demand Burger King apologize to Wikipedia? What obligation does Burger King have to apologize to Wikipedia? Smallbones' letter documents the vile, heinous lies that were included in our article about their product - I actually think Wikipedia should apologize to Burger King. "We believe that these hidden ads are morally equivalent to stealing from a charity." - sorry, but I don't believe that at all. I think it's actually quite disingenuous to equate such an act to "stealing from a charity." Mr Ernie (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)- It isn't a drastic punishment. We would be saying "If you break our Terms of Use, then people will find out you broke our Terms of Use." That's not a revolutionary statement. As for "proof" this was Burger King, the ad originated from Burger King and the timing of the promotional edits were shortly before that. That's not coincidence. ~ Rob13Talk 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Then start a proposal on the Village Pump to create a punitive policy for entities violating the Terms of Use. Additionally, User:Smallbones I strongly oppose you sending this open letter as a statement from listed Wikipedia editors to the listed firms and members of the media. Such a statement should be made and organized off-wiki. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not really used to these procedures as my account is quite recent. But I wondered about a similar concern: this is an open editor protest letter, intended to be clearly indicated as such? If so, it may perhaps be appropriate to clearly indicate that this is not the official view of the foundation? —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. I'm also opposed to sending this letter as it is. When I proposed an open letter I envisaged an educational outreach opportunity, not hostile demands. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not really used to these procedures as my account is quite recent. But I wondered about a similar concern: this is an open editor protest letter, intended to be clearly indicated as such? If so, it may perhaps be appropriate to clearly indicate that this is not the official view of the foundation? —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Then start a proposal on the Village Pump to create a punitive policy for entities violating the Terms of Use. Additionally, User:Smallbones I strongly oppose you sending this open letter as a statement from listed Wikipedia editors to the listed firms and members of the media. Such a statement should be made and organized off-wiki. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- It isn't a drastic punishment. We would be saying "If you break our Terms of Use, then people will find out you broke our Terms of Use." That's not a revolutionary statement. As for "proof" this was Burger King, the ad originated from Burger King and the timing of the promotional edits were shortly before that. That's not coincidence. ~ Rob13Talk 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's a mock-up of what I'd personally like to see at Burger King and Whopper. It's a derivative of {{COI}}. ~ Rob13Talk 20:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Template:Burger King COI
- We have however fixed the issues. This was their first offense and a fairly minor one in the grand scheme of things. We have many examples that are much worse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- We have the COI tag already. But once the issues are fixed the tag is typically removed. With respect to dealing with the larger issue of paid editing, we IMO would be better serving our readers by working more to address the companies that are involved in paid editing day in and day out (usually with sock puppets) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- We have however fixed the issues. This was their first offense and a fairly minor one in the grand scheme of things. We have many examples that are much worse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with Mr. Ernie 100%. They can exact a "penalty" by simply issuing a press release and causing BK to get a public relations hit. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Wording
I have summarized the letter a fair bit. User:Smallbones let me know your thoughts?
We have also connected User:Fermachado123 to Fernando Machado. Wondering peoples thoughts on the permissibility of that? IMO it is reasonable as others have published such a connection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- As the resident anti-outing fanatic, even I believe that such a connection can be publicly discussed after it is the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources. At that point, nothing we say is going to cause more damage. ~ Rob13Talk 21:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all the changes. I may be more outraged than most Wikipedians at Burger King's actions, but it is important that we reflect the opinions of more than just 1 editor!. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Web citations
If this is a letter, which may potentially be printed, it may possibly be nice for footnote URLs to also be part of the text? —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Another version
See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Burger King open letter and of course Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Burger King open letter. (And there's no reason not to sign both versions if you are so inclined.) Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
- User:Smallbones and User:Andrewa please make it clear in both versions that Wikipedia users vandalized the Burger King page, inserting material that breaks the core policies of the project. Please also include an apology to Burger King for these actions. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not needed. It was rapidly dealt with and the users who did it warned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- And the users who broke the promotional edit policy were outed and banned. And regardless of how long it lasted, there was a period of time that users could go to the Whopper page and read that "rat meat and toenail clippings" were ingredients in the Whopper. I think someone should propose a BLB policy to ensure no harm is done to burgers. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
- Not needed. It was rapidly dealt with and the users who did it warned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The Foundation's role
I'm very glad that editors are addressing this atrocity, but I would like to see Jimbo and the Foundation expend energy on this. If they don't, why should we? Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)