PR industry to "cooperate" with Wikipedia Options

[thekohser]

There are a number of well-timed counter-movements in the wake of the Bell Pottinger flap, where consortia of PR industry leaders are going to try to "reach out" to Wikipedia and gain consensus on how PR firms can dutifully and ethically interact with Wikipedia.

I have a feeling that in about 6 months there will be a lot of heartbroken, grieved people in the PR industry.

[Kelly Martin]

where consortia of PR industry leaders are going to try to "reach out" to Wikipedia and gain consensus on how PR firms can dutifully and ethically interact with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's community doesn't want to "interact" with PR firms. In fact, it systemically views PR firms as very nearly the ultimate enemy of truth, and wants absolutely nothing to do with them. This reflects Wikipedia's deep anticorporate, antibusiness, antiproperty attitudes. Not at all Wikipedians are communists, to be sure, but enough of them are, and especially in Wikipedia's early days, so that those ideologies run deep in the governing philosophy. And most of its current participants are not intellectually mature enough to contemplate the rules that they're given to follow, ascertain the underlying principles, and evaluate for themselves whether or not they really make sense. They just follow them, unquestioning, because that's what you do if you want to belong.

On top of that, Jimmy's personal interest in maximizing the size of the community (apparently above all other concerns) necessitates that there must not be any paid editors; otherwise, unpaid editors may come to feel like second-class citizens, resulting in a loss of participation. Basically, if any editor can be paid, why not all of them?

So I share your belief that the PR community is going to come out of this experience burned. An interesting possible side effect is going to be corporations recommending that the best strategies for dealing with Wikipedia are litigation and lobbying (if you can't handle it with PR, handle it with lawyers and politicians), and that's going to mean an attack on Section 230 as well as even more efforts to sue Wikipedians directly. I find it amusing that Wikipedia's intransigence on these issues are likely to hurt them badly, possibly even fatally, in the long run.

[thekohser]

Herostratus is perhaps the Wikipediot Tool of the Month for this one.

[thekohser]

Herostratus is perhaps the Wikipediot Tool of the Month for this one.

And we knew it wouldn't be long before Wikipedia's Number One Moron glommed to the idea. Also, it didn't take long for him to actually recommend a sort of yellow Star of David badge for PR "advocates".

What will now happen, of course, is that the "advocate" label will get tossed around just as the "POV pusher" label gets tossed around, and all sorts of fun will ensue.

[Michaeldsuarez]

Herostratus is perhaps the Wikipediot Tool of the Month for this one.

Wikipedia have established yet another Committee of Public Safety / Committee of Union and Progress.

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...atch/Principles

This sounds as if it were written by a four-year-old.

[Silver seren]

Okay, that's it, i'm going to go start "another" Wikiproject. How about Wikiproject Cooperation?

Or...Wikiproject Cooperation and Education?

It'll be used to work with companies and users being paid by companies, to help them understand how Wikipedia works and what the rules are that they must follow. How they have a COI and must tread lightly and it would be far better for them to suggest changes on the talk pages rather than make the changes themselves.

Also, that it would be good for them to make drafts of their wanted changes and submit them for review by other users, who can check them for issues and then insert them into the articles.

[melloden]

where consortia of PR industry leaders are going to try to "reach out" to Wikipedia and gain consensus on how PR firms can dutifully and ethically interact with Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's community doesn't want to "interact" with PR firms. In fact, it systemically views PR firms as very nearly the ultimate enemy of truth, and wants absolutely nothing to do with them. This reflects Wikipedia's deep anticorporate, antibusiness, antiproperty attitudes. Not at all Wikipedians are communists, to be sure, but enough of them are, and especially in Wikipedia's early days, so that those ideologies run deep in the governing philosophy. And most of its current participants are not intellectually mature enough to contemplate the rules that they're given to follow, ascertain the underlying principles, and evaluate for themselves whether or not they really make sense. They just follow them, unquestioning, because that's what you do if you want to belong.

On top of that, Jimmy's personal interest in maximizing the size of the community (apparently above all other concerns) necessitates that there must not be any paid editors; otherwise, unpaid editors may come to feel like second-class citizens, resulting in a loss of participation. Basically, if any editor can be paid, why not all of them?

So I share your belief that the PR community is going to come out of this experience burned. An interesting possible side effect is going to be corporations recommending that the best strategies for dealing with Wikipedia are litigation and lobbying (if you can't handle it with PR, handle it with lawyers and politicians), and that's going to mean an attack on Section 230 as well as even more efforts to sue Wikipedians directly. I find it amusing that Wikipedia's intransigence on these issues are likely to hurt them badly, possibly even fatally, in the long run.

But because there's no official policy against PR editing, the WMF or Jimbo sometimes asks OTRS and other unpaid users to deal with articles that PR firms have complained about. So instead of the PR people doing it, the job is getting outsourced to volunteers who don't really care about the topic they're writing about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...atch/Principles

This sounds as if it were written by a four-year-old.

"It's not OK to edit the Wikipedia in return for financial compensation, or under the orders of any government, corporation, or similar organization. It is not against policy. But it is still wrong and bad."

Osama bin Laden was wrong and bad. The KKK is wrong and bad. Adolf Hitler was wrong and bad (except his artwork was only marginally bad). Paid editing is only bad if you're being a dumbass while doing it.

[thekohser]

Okay, that's it, i'm going to go start "another" Wikiproject. How about Wikiproject Cooperation?

Or...Wikiproject Cooperation and Education?

It'll be used to work with companies and users being paid by companies, to help them understand how Wikipedia works and what the rules are that they must follow. How they have a COI and must tread lightly and it would be far better for them to suggest changes on the talk pages rather than make the changes themselves.

Also, that it would be good for them to make drafts of their wanted changes and submit them for review by other users, who can check them for issues and then insert them into the articles.

Great idea! Now, who will hold the Wikipediots to the other end of the implied contract -- that they will treat the COI party's requested changes with respect and promptly implement those changes that any rational person would determine to be appropriate for improving an encyclopedia?

Oh, wait -- here's how admins deal with content suggestions on Wikipedia -- out with the good, back in with the bad!

Here's a suggested name for your project, Silver: Wikiproject Hoodwink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...atch/Principles

This sounds as if it were written by a four-year-old.

Really, it's just three mental midgets:

Participants

Herostratus (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Ebikeguy (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikid77 (talk) 08:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[thekohser]

Jimbo responded to Phil Gomes' blog. Phil is not pleased. And I basically let Jimbo have it with two comments in reply.

[Silver seren]

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.

[EricBarbour]

JD The Fat Boy speaks!

The instructions on Conflicts of Interest are useless, as with so many Wikipedia policy pages, for which I can only apologise (indeed, I helped write the first draft of that policy).

O RLY?

[dogbiscuit]

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.

We don't think Wikipedia is a very good representation of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[thekohser]

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.

Criticism from the guy who fantasizes about people dressed in fur suits? I'll take it!

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...Editor_Registry

They're handing out yellow Stars of David.

These Stars will eventually find their way onto article talk pages as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...k_page_template

[thekohser]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...Editor_Registry

They're handing out yellow Stars of David.

These Stars will eventually find their way onto article talk pages as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...k_page_template

Why is Wikipedia Review not on that list?!?! I want my gold star!

[Michaeldsuarez]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Herostra...Editor_Registry

It's funny how Herostratus uses the word "proof" (i.e. "gotcha") instead of "evidence" or "public, self-make disclosure".

It's also funny how the list only displays the transparent, honest users and not the sneaky, dishonest ones. The list enables the Committee of Public Safety to stalk and spy on the "Good Guys" instead of enabling users to investigate the "Bad Guys". The "registry" is basically a hit list.

[Fusion]

Criticism from the guy who fantasizes about people dressed in fur suits? I'll take it!

You should try being in Archangel in mid-winter. Fur suits are very valuable.

[Silver seren]

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.

Criticism from the guy who fantasizes about people dressed in fur suits? I'll take it!

Nice way to try to deflect the point of the comment.

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group? It's pretty self-evident that you don't really support the "Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" part of the acronym. And a number of the members there know it as well.

[SB_Johnny]

Kohser, I don't think you're a very good representation of paid editing. Sure, you're correct about the Arch Coal incident, but your actions since 2006 have been less than scrupulous.

Criticism from the guy who fantasizes about people dressed in fur suits? I'll take it!

Nice way to try to deflect the point of the comment.

I thought it was a nice way to do it too! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group?

Link? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

[Silver seren]

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group?

Link? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/

[SB_Johnny]

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group?

Link? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif)

https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/

Wow. If you want to see Jimmy Wales being a serious foot-in-mouth prick, check out that FB page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

[thekohser]

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group? It's pretty self-evident that you don't really support the "Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" part of the acronym. And a number of the members there know it as well.

I hope you're prepared to listen to me, because you really need a talking to.

You've called my "actions" "less than scrupulous", but provided no evidence.

I've been engaging on a friendly basis with Steve Rubel and Shel Holtz since 2006 and 2007. I've been in touch with Phil Gomes since two years ago. I wrote a promotional white paper about marketing research's role in the PR industry. When I was a research supplier, PR firms like Manning Selvage & Lee, Ogilvy PR, and Euro RSCG would pay my company hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for my services. I think I have a right to provide my valuable input on the Facebook CREWE group.

Now, what are your credentials in the PR industry, fur ball?

https://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/

Wow. If you want to see Jimmy Wales being a serious foot-in-mouth prick, check out that FB page. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)

I wish I could see what he's saying, but somehow he has his Facebook set to exclude my account from viewing his content, even in the group.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Silver seren]

Explain to me again, Gregory, why are you in the CREWE group? It's pretty self-evident that you don't really support the "Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" part of the acronym. And a number of the members there know it as well.

I hope you're prepared to listen to me, because you really need a talking to.

You've called my "actions" "less than scrupulous", but provided no evidence.

I've been engaging on a friendly basis with Steve Rubel and Shel Holtz since 2006 and 2007. I've been in touch with Phil Gomes since two years ago. I wrote a promotional white paper about marketing research's role in the PR industry. When I was a research supplier, PR firms like Manning Selvage & Lee, Ogilvy PR, and Euro RSCG would pay my company hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for my services. I think I have a right to provide my valuable input on the Facebook CREWE group.

Now, what are your credentials in the PR industry, fur ball?

When I said "less than scrupulous", I was referring to your actions on Wikipedia, not elsewhere (how would I even know about those?).

And in terms of your actions on Wikipedia, I really only have to use one word that encompasses most of your actions: Sockpuppets.

And then I can also link to your very recent comment in this forum right here.

And we both know you're made more outright comments of that nature on WR before.

This post has been edited by Silver seren:

[thekohser]

When I said "less than scrupulous", I was referring to your actions on Wikipedia, not elsewhere (how would I even know about those?).

And in terms of your actions on Wikipedia, I really only have to use one word that encompasses most of your actions: Sockpuppets.

And then I can also link to your very recent comment in this forum right here.

And we both know you're made more outright comments of that nature on WR before.

Oh... then I probably owe you an apology. I didn't realize you were one of those WikiLove disciples who believes that every WikiRule that is broken in order to achieve right outcomes in the real world, is a matter of "unscrupulous" action in the real world.

When you eventually graduate from college in a couple of years, I hope that you'll come to realize that "sockpuppeting on Wikipedia" doesn't always equal "less than scrupulous" in the real world. If it takes a sockpuppet to remove lies from the world's largest defamation platform, then the right and just man sockpuppets.

Are you going to Wikimania 2012 in Washington? I'll hope to meet you there. I'm going to learn a lot about the "true believer" personalities.

Sorry about the "fur ball" epithet, too. Some furries are kind of cute.

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Silver seren]

Washington is rather far away from both Texas and Nebraska, so likely not.

And I just think that that opinion of yours, while valid, I suppose, is at odds with the point of the CREWE group, who would feel that sockpuppeting is not a part of the ethical stance they're trying to take.

[thekohser]

Washington is rather far away from both Texas and Nebraska, so likely not.

And I just think that that opinion of yours, while valid, I suppose, is at odds with the point of the CREWE group, who would feel that sockpuppeting is not a part of the ethical stance they're trying to take.

Just wait... Given enough asinine retorts from Jimmy Wales, by the end of 2012, half of that CREWE will have decided that sockpuppeting is the only way to get things properly done on Wikipedia.

You don't seem to realize, and they don't seem to realize, that they are still in the "I haven't discovered how utterly corrupt and insane Wikipedia is" phase.

[Silver seren]

We'll see. If Wikiproject Cooperation is successful, then it'll be a moot point.

[thekohser]

We'll see. If Wikiproject Cooperation is successful, then it'll be a moot point.

Well, I see you already have William Beutler (recent guest star on a Q&A show on C-SPAN) making subservient gestures at your feet, so you must be feeling quite proud and successful already!

I'm curious... when Jimbo eventually storms into your Wikiproject and calls for it to be shuttered, what will you do then?

This post has been edited by thekohser:

[Silver seren]

Jimbo already commented on the talk page. He wanted to make sure that we wouldn't be encouraging COI editors to be actively editing article space and we said no, just talk pages and article drafts and things. And then he was fine with it, as far as I can tell.

I'm still trying to discuss about allowing minor changes, like grammar, spelling, and things like that, since that would be a pain for them to have to keep asking if it's okay to make this or that change and such changes don't really fall under any COI issues anyways.

And I wonder what William would say if he saw you saying things like that about him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Peter Damian]

Are you going to Wikimania 2012 in Washington? I'll hope to meet you there. I'm going to learn a lot about the "true believer" personalities.

Arghh!! Outing! Harassment OMG!! Ban Kohs!!

[thekohser]

I'm still trying to discuss about allowing minor changes, like grammar, spelling, and things like that, since that would be a pain for them to have to keep asking if it's okay to make this or that change and such changes don't really fall under any COI issues anyways.

I guess you didn't hear Jimbo -- he clearly said about your project:

There is little to no chance of "Death by Jimbo" as long as this project emphasizes front and center that paid advocates should never edit Wikipedia articles directly.

How are your listening and comprehension skills?

[thekohser]

And I wonder what William would say if he saw you saying things like that about him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

William probably doesn't have the time or energy to worry about things I'm saying about him, when his head is probably spinning from what Jimbo said about him:

As the editor who, as far as I know, has done the single best job of abusing our assumption of good faith and illustrating why it's so critical that people in your position be completely restricted from making edits in article space, your position is unsurprising. Nor is it likely to carry the day.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know in December 2012 how many PR professionals are still engaged in your Wikiproject cooperation.

[thekohser]

Credit where it's due... Silver did have the gumption to call Jimbo's comment "extremely rude and not at all professional".

I give this WikiProject until June 2012 before it's getting less than three edits per week, or has been closed by Jimbo.

[Kelly Martin]

I see Jimmy is using his usual oubliette strategy with the CREWE people. Somehow I doubt it will work with them.

[SB_Johnny]

I see Jimmy is using his usual oubliette strategy with the CREWE people. Somehow I doubt it will work with them.

(Jimmy on Facebook): I did not simply ignore the complaint that people don't look at talk pages - I denied it. It is very simply false. If you follow best practices, it is trivially easy to get someone to help you in Wikipedia.

Any action or proposed action put forward in defiance of the facts of reality is destined to fail. A great many of the arguments put forward are unrecognizable to experienced Wikipedians. Can we do a better job of helping to educate you on how to ethically participate in Wikipedia (i.e. NEVER EDIT ARTICLES but do X, Y, and Z) instead? Yes, of course, and that should be the sole focus of this group.

I don't see what is formulaic about my response. It's clear and to the point, and fully addresses the concerns that people have raised. There is a right way and a wrong way to approach Wikipedia if you are a paid advocate - the right way will work, will benefit you and your clients, as well as benefitting Wikipedia. The wrong way calls your ethics into question, embarrasses your clients, and damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

So much for the encyclopedia anybody can edit.

[dogbiscuit]

Greg, I guess you'd take issue with this Jimbo "fact" in the context of paid editing:

And yes, I think it would be valuable to have specific examples. I have never - not even once - been shown an example where someone did things according to my recommendations and they did not get a proper resolution.

There is a wonderful weaselliness about those qualifications, isn't there?

[TungstenCarbide]

Jimbo already commented on the talk page. He wanted to make sure that we wouldn't be encouraging COI editors to be actively editing article space and we said no, just talk pages and article drafts and things. And then he was fine with it, as far as I can tell.

I'm still trying to discuss about allowing minor changes, like grammar, spelling, and things like that, since that would be a pain for them to have to keep asking if it's okay to make this or that change and such changes don't really fall under any COI issues anyways.

And I wonder what William would say if he saw you saying things like that about him. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

Damn Silver seren, you're really getting some traction on this. I respect your efforts, but am sure Jimbo will find a way to insert himself and muck up the works. Are you a member of the CREWE Group on facebook?

[Kelly Martin]

Greg, I guess you'd take issue with this Jimbo "fact" in the context of paid editing:

And yes, I think it would be valuable to have specific examples. I have never - not even once - been shown an example where someone did things according to my recommendations and they did not get a proper resolution.

There is a wonderful weaselliness about those qualifications, isn't there?

No true Scotsman, indeed.

[thekohser]

Greg, I guess you'd take issue with this Jimbo "fact" in the context of paid editing:

And yes, I think it would be valuable to have specific examples. I have never - not even once - been shown an example where someone did things according to my recommendations and they did not get a proper resolution.

There is a wonderful weaselliness about those qualifications, isn't there?

Essentially any time Jimbo is moving his lips or typing on his keyboard, I take issue.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

I guess he's forgotten entirely about Arch Coal, which was the grand-daddy of article process following his recommendations exactly. The result? An out-of-process deletion, a restoration that had been plagiarized by an admin without attribution, protection of the admin who plagiarized, and a two-year refusal to apologize for the disgraceful outcome.

Are you a member of the CREWE Group on facebook?

He is. His Facebook name is "Sterling Ericsson".

This post has been edited by thekohser: