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.

[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!

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

Link?