Wikipedia talk:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms

About the statement

This statement represents more than five months of effort by myself and the other individuals listed on this page. I think we're all very interested to see how it is received—anxious, but also hopeful. If indeed its reception is positive, I'm sure this is only the beginning. We welcome any and all comments here, as well as questions about either this statement or the February meeting that preceded it. Best, WWB (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Not the first

This is a good step, but far from the first one; a series of such discussions have been held since at least 2010 [1] - not least with the UK's Chartered Institute of Public Relations; who published best practice guidelines in 2012 [2]. An amendment to that affect would be appreciated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Andy, I follow your point. It's certainly the first time this particular group has come together, and the first time a statement like this has been made by all of these global agencies. While not the first time anyone has worked on this issue (nor the first time some in this group have) I think it's fair to consider it a renewed effort. If you have any suggested changes to the explanatory text on the project page, however, I'm open to updating it. Cheers, WWB (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I like that it basically follows the same sort of guidelines as the CIPR statement. Because the guidelines are fundamentally sensible: "don't be a dick" :-) - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A) congrats to *everybody* B) Why not just link to a similar statement from the UK CIPR? and do please give them precedence (that said, the US firms retained the right to continue to really f things up! now that has changed) C) Would anybody mind if something was put in WP:COI, say "we encourage PR firms to sign up at WP:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms or UK page." It might be considered a bit circular, but the idea would get across. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, David and Smallbones. Andy, I've moved your Prior art content to a new sentence in the first paragraph, added CREWE, and kept your citations. WWB (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dates?

I think it would be helpful if there was a date next to each of the parties who have "joined" the statement (I find that an odd choice for a verb, but I digress). Otherwise, it's difficult to tell even exactly when the initial parties made their commitments (on or after February 2014, but that's open-ended) without digging into the History page. Also, it would give a bit more credit to the initial signatories. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Contact

Nice work! I wonder if each firm should have a contact that alleged violations can be sent to (rather than the media) as often individual account teams are not aware. CIPR's guidance is one of the better, but still has some errors/problems. For example, their latest guide says that OTRS agents will "advocate" for a PR person that submits a ticket. BTW - is this agreement open to any PR firm to just add their name to? CorporateM (Talk) 01:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC) (a frequent COI participant)

It certainly ought to be (given a certain size). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement is open for anyone to join. Please just simply add your firm's details to the signatory section in the essay. I also like the idea of a "violation contact" at each agency. I'm with Ogilvy, one of the signatories, and this is definitely something I'll explore for our firm. Any suggestions on how to let the Wikipedia community know about that contact point, assuming it makes sense to establish one?Tmmanson (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd actually like to offer a bit different view from Marshall—sorry to differ with you publicly without speaking first; things move quickly here!—but I think I should clarify that, as a group, we're still working on the exact process for onboarding new members. If Wiki-PR wanted to join (to the extent they still exist) I think we would be very skeptical of that. So hang tight CorporateM, we'll figure this out shortly. WWB (talk) 14:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I read the instructions after I posted here on Talk. I think it is a bad situation for example if Wiki-Experts wanted to join and you were the one that had to decide. And there are a lot of other more grey-area types of potential situations. There's also the potential for editors to suggest someone needs to be removed for bad behavior. Anything COI-related tends to attract a lot of cruft from battlegrounds and such as well. It probably needs to be maintained by a disinterested editor and subject to the ruling power of consensus if it is to be an open Wikipedia-thing and if we want the list to grow and become long-term "thing". I'm actually wishing I attended your meeting now - as this is quite good and very different from the types of advocacy I've seen from the CREWE-crowd in the past. I don't like that there is still this argument that PR pros and Wikipedia have aligned interests, rather than acknowledging that there is a conflict of interest. That's my nit-pick.

Anyways, let me know. I wouldn't mind sending this to a few people suggesting they sign up. CorporateM (Talk) 14:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC) (a frequent COI participant)

Apologies, all. As Bill says, things are moving quickly, and I've gotten my wires crossed. If you're interested in getting involved, please go with what Bill says on the main page. In the meantime, let's keep the conversation going.Tmmanson (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

One more thought is that individual companies should be able to sign up as well? CorporateM (Talk) 15:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How about making "membership" (is that the right word?) open to all Wikipedia editors in good standing? That would eliminate the Wiki-PRs and Wiki-Experts of the world since they are banned. I'd be uncomfortable with a process that would consider letting Wiki-Experts join as a "difficult decision." I'd also be uncomfortable with somebody saying "well you're not a big well-known firm, so you can't sign on." Why not make it open to join for all editors in good standing, with a consensus process to kick out or readmit participants? One possible problem - this seems to be mainly for organizations, but editors here must be editing as individuals.

Finally, what about organizing as a Wiki project (easy to do), an official User group (takes a few weeks to get WMF approval) or even a Thematic Organization (would be challenging) - just make sure that when you apply to the WMF you state (continuing) that you will never ask the WMF for money and that you are *not* seeking any direct or even indirect approval of any of your actions, but simply seeking a more direct means of communicating with the WMF and a more convenient way for this group to conduct some operations on Wikipedia.

Finally for a real off-the-wall idea. What about doing something like a Wikipedian-in-residence? It should be pretty simple for 10 big PR firms to raise $50,000 or even $100k, to hire a completely independent, one-year-only, person to investigate the on-Wiki activities of the member firms to see if they are living up to their commitments made here. Any spare time could go into investigating the on-Wiki activities of other PR firms. The WiRs "power" would only be the power of the word - as an independent reporter. To keep the WiR totally independent the contract would be non-renewable and he or she could only be removed for pre-specified causes, subject to the approval of the Wikipedia community (at WP:AN?) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I support Smallbones position regarding prohibiting banned organizations/editors from signing, which actually doesn't need to be said, since if they are banned, they can't sign up. Any PR editors that are sufficiently problematic to warrant shunning them off the statement will likely be blocked in short order anyway. Therefore no changes are actually needed there. And of course it should be open to PR agencies of any size, but we don't need to spell that out, so also, fine the way it is. CorporateM (Talk) 15:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC) (a frequent COI participant)

Hi there, Smallbones. I think I'm inclined to agree—after all, we really do want everyone to follow these principles, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to keep someone off unless they have already demonstrated themselves to be unwelcome on Wikipedia. Likewise, now that the project has moved on-wiki, so should decisions about who joins. Better to use wiki organizing principles as much as we can. Perhaps the thing to do is reorganize the list sections a bit: Agencies; Institutions; Individuals? I'm communicating off-wiki with some of the agency participants to see what they think, and I'll encourage them to comment here as well. I'll also start looking at rewriting the "How to join" section. Further comments welcome. WWB (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

One more comment from me, actually: the ideas you raise about a WiR for this purpose is one I've had with a number of folks, and while agree it would take a greater organizing effort than this, it's something I'd like to explore. Also, I've only recently become familiar with User groups—but you've given me the idea to investigate this further. Thanks, WWB (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A WIR would be neat if they were intended to actually improve articles, rather than just police them, as a way for companies to get a more independent sponsored editor to spend time on their page. CorporateM (Talk) 17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, this is definitely the direction we're moving in: open to anyone representing an agency or organization in good standing, and then I'm going to start a new discussion shortly about how to acknowledge individuals' support. I also want that to be wide open; my question will be more about how best to manage the list. More soon, WWB (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for joining + showing individual support

I've just updated the How to join section, and incorporated some of your language, CorporateM. (Mailing list still needs to be sorted out better before adding something about that.) It's now open to anyone with an agency / firm or industry organization. Now, the question of individual support. It was pointed out to me (off-wiki) that it could become unwieldy. What about a user box, or badge? This would create a category where all could be listed. I'm leaning this direction, and would like to hear what others think. WWB (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I put in a note to WOMMA asking them to sign up. Of course you know what's bugging me is that you have to OUT yourself in order to sign up. I am one of few marketing participants that discloses a COI where appropriate, but still contributes anonymously. I need to get back to work (very slammed this week) and let others discuss, but again, great work! CorporateM (Talk) 20:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

We would definitely like WOMMA on board; I know at least one other person from the group has reached out to them. Also, there is no requirement that one use their real name, though I am recommending that most do. I'd also say that the regulars here are probably not ignorant of your IRL identity, although we'll respect your wishes. If you want to add your firm to the list of agencies, by all means, please do. WWB (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I added myself. Yes, most of "the regulars" know who I am or have met me in-person, but they are not the ones I am concerned with. I still believe in Wikipedia's founding principles - anonymous contributions, focus on the content not the editor, etc. and in my view public relations pros often disclose too much. They provide their full names, job roles and long-winded pontifications about their respect for Wikipedia. This makes it a bigger punch in the gut when their is opposition to their edits and makes them feel that it is because of the information they disclosed that their edits are being met with resistance. This is the whole reason and basis of anonymous editing. I don't feel that complying with WP:COI, the Terms of Use or FTC's laws has to contradict Wikipedia's fundamental principles, which I will preserve to the best of my ability, even while fulfilling an unusual role that was not predicted at the onset of the project. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would like to include my individual support for this. I have been an active Wikipedian for some years, and have helped the CIPR with its recent guidance notes and other activities (including training) in relation to ethical engagement with Wikipedia. Good to see some familiar names elsewhere on this page. Andy Mabbett and I collaborated on an Editathon last year, and CorporateM and I have exchanged notes via Talk pages a few times. Paul W (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We also seek opportunities for a productive and transparent dialogue with Wikipedia editors

Re: "We also seek opportunities for a productive and transparent dialogue with Wikipedia editors" I took part in some of the discussions on the UK Wiki with the PR industry, and this was one of the areas where expectations were furthest apart. The PR people were approaching this the way they would journalists and looking to cultivate particular editors, my recommendation to them then and now would be to avoid cultivating particular editors and instead learn of a few noticeboards that would be relevant to them. This is partly a matter of working with a volunteer community, the BLP noticeboard will give you fair protection against violations of our policies on living people, but an individual wikipedian is a volunteer who turns up when they turn up, may disappear for months for exams or work and who may not want a reputation for repeatedly editing on behalf of a particular agency and its clients. So my suggestion is that to achieve "productive and transparent" they only use email to contact lists set up for that purpose - reporting copyvio or indeed giving permission for it, to OTRS and for emailing stuff that merits redaction to the oversighters list. That would in my view be the most productive way to work and also get the right level of transparency. Equally when a page merits protection a posting to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection would be faster and more productive than trying to cultivate an admin. ϢereSpielChequers 18:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, WereSpielChequers, nice to meet you in London this month and here I finally am replying to this message. I now understand a bit better what you mean about the differing expectations—and it's certainly a gap I'd like to close. I tend to agree with you that identifying noticeboards and community projects where help can be found is a good first recommendation. I'd also say, from a practical standpoint, that sometimes one needs to find an editor with specific expertise on a subject. This is why I'll often recommend, as a next step, looking through the edit history of an article to find someone who has made substantial constructive contributions in the past. I'm completely agreed it would be bad for both a brand and an editor if a volunteer was perceived as a proxy for the company. This is one reason why I'll tend to seek out many different editors across numerous projects—though there are indeed some I've returned to for help from time to time. Lastly, I agree that the real discussions about article content need to take place on-wiki. The email list is simply being used to keep signatories informed about ongoing developments. Best, WWB (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes

Because this is here on Wikipedia as an essay, it is openly editable by anyone, unless it is moved to user-space where in that case it is accepted that an editor, or a group of editors, can maintain control over it. However, it seems to me that the statement itself cannot be changed, since people have already signed a prior version of it and it is directly quoting a Statement broadly reported in the media.

For example, it seems to be currently missing something like "to put Wikipedia's best interests before those of our client or employer to the best of our ability". This is the central premise of COI. It is probably missing because the PR community generally denies that a COI exists by claiming that their interests are aligned. I believe people who make this argument genuinely believe it, but those of us who have been around for a while know better.

It seems to me that an ethics statement that is endorsed by even a substantial portion of the community should acknowledge a COI and commit to doing their best to manage it. At the same time, it seems like we're in an awkward situation where we have content on Wikipedia, written by PR people, for PR people, that cannot be changed by the community - doesn't seem right. I have no solution to propose... CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As we would with such material in articles; mark it up and label it as a quote. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Jumping around a bit here

The other thing I noticed was that the essay seems be to be serving as a repository of links or a coverage report essentially. If these links were intended to serve as references, they should be moved in-line and we should use a hand-full of reliable secondary sources, rather than blog posts from participants. OTOH, essays don't actually need citations, so I think the whole section can be removed as WP:NOT a directory of links. They could also be justified as Further Reading type external links, but even then, just 2-3 would be fine.

One comment I've seen about the Statement is that most of the user accounts signing it have no contribution history, despite instances where their PR firm does in fact have a contribution history from other accounts/users that is not being disclosed. I think this would be easy to fix by adding to the signup process that the representative should disclose all accounts registered to their firm, but then that does raise privacy/stalking concerns. CorporateM (Talk) 22:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Andy is correct: the wording of the statement is essentially a quote, and should be preserved. If it would be preferable to place these words inside a quotation template, that would be acceptable. However, changing the wording to make it appear as if the firms agreed to a different statement is not. As such, I've reverted all of CorporateM's changes, and would prefer to discuss any other changes here first. Best, WWB (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed promotional content like "leading" PR agencies and "These agencies have articulated a clear message" with clear edit summaries like "trimming promotion/advocacy". Just as this content would be a promotional and a COI problem in article-space, it is in essay space as well. You reverted saying that I changed the Statement itself, but that's not true, I didn't make any changes to the Statement. Do you think "These agencies have articulated a clear message" is a neutral statement that is in Wikipedia's best interest to keep on this page? Or is it a phrase added to promote/advocate for a concept/group/etc.? CorporateM (Talk) 18:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

CorportateM, I think your changes are contrary to the spirit of BRD so I've reverted once more. Besides that, I'm sorry to see that you've deleted my friendly comment from your own Talk page. I had let you know that I made this change, a courtesy you had not extended to me when you had changed this project page. I suspect your recent edits have something to do with the fact that you withdrew your own name from the list of signatories after I asked you to include your full name as all other signatories had done, but beyond that I am afraid I do not understand what your goal for this page is. Let's please discuss this here before going back to the page itself. Best, WWB (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have temporarily placed this page under protection. Please work out agreed upon changes on talk, and then either use an appropriate requested edit template to implement changes immediately, or just wait for the protection to wear off. Given the rather uusual nature of this page, I would highly, highly, recommend that anyone who wants to make significant changes to the page establishes a consensus on talk that the changes are a good idea before trying to implement them. I would heavily encourage both sides of the dispute to just work it out on the talk page. Over the course of Wikipedia's history, even if I've temporarily protected the 'wrong version' for three days, very little to no harm will have been done by doing so - whereas discussion about potential changes has a lot of potential to improve both this page and potentially related practices on Wikipedia in general. I would also ask people to be very cautious in making edits that could reasonaby be construed as shifting the intent of the original signatories. I'll be paying attention to this page for at least the next few days, but please feel free to directly ping me if consensus to change or remove parts of the page is constructed while the page is still protected and I'll be happy to implement them, or to answer questions about why I protected it, etc.Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

My edits were prompted by a Talk page message here that made me revisit this page. Your message was reverted because you addressed me by my real-name. I assumed this was on purpose to harass me, since you know full well how I feel about outing, which we had just discussed about two days before. You have provided no content-based reasons to maintain promotional language, remove a balanced analysis and keep a massive repository of links. Instead you use POV railroading tactics by focusing on the editor, on process and by mis-representing the actual edits, creating a false narrative to discredit me. First you say I made edits that I didn't actually make in order to justify reverting, then when I explain nobody made those changes you describe, you revert me again by saying I just have a bone to pick. I have explained over and over that the edits are promotional, to which there has been no direct response. Do you deny "These agencies have articulated a clear message" is promotional? Why do you keep restoring it? I have asked this question and the response is basically "you just have a bone to pick."

I see no reason to bump heads on this page, because there are plenty of other articles/pages for me to move on to. Hopefully someone else will address the promotionalism and COI editing, but I will continue on to other pages and not escalate what is now being called a "dispute". There are other promotional pages that will be much easier to fix. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@CorporateM: - I assume you meant to reply to WWB, rather than myself? If so, I'll let him reply, and otherwise, I'm a bit confused. However, I would ask you to refrain from accusing WWB of violating WP:OUTING. I know you have a strong preference to avoid the use of your real name on-wiki (and I abide by said preference,) but you have publicly associated your real-life name with your username directly on ENWP, multiple times, in prominent forums, some in the not very distant past - someone mentioning that information cannot be in violation of WP:OUTING (it's written in to the policy.) Given that an actual instance of outing or attempted outing is an instantly blockable offense, please don't suggest that another user is in violation of it when they aren't - it's a pretty incendiary accusation. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you privately send me the instance where I have recently publicly disclosed my real-name on-Wiki? This has been mentioned a couple times, but I don't actually know what people are talking about. On the contrary, I routinely ask admins to redact edits when people use my real-name. If I am actually not protected against outing, I may need to do a fresh start (or something, I don't know). I do have the right to control my Talk page if I feel someone is scoffing me. CorporateM (Talk) 16:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

You certainly can delete whatever you want from your talk page. I'll privately drop you the instances I am aware of within the next few minutes. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Just looking at the changes (above section)

I have some sympathy for CorpM's changes, but ultimately the signatories should decide most of what's on the project page. CM's points seem to be that the intro is a bit flowery and that all the articles listed seem a bit self-congratulatory, and that this does not follow Wikipedia rules. But of course they are! This is written mostly by PR folks and they must be very happy to see some positive PR for their firms. In the spirit of WP:Ignore all rules, and whatever it takes to improve the encyclopedia, I'll suggest we all let it rest.

The only suggestion I have is that maybe this could be switched to a wikiproject, say WP:WP Participating Communication Firms. I suppose there must be a WP:Wikiprojects out there somewhere for you to ask permission. Wikiprojects often have project pages that are a bit flowery, or overly long. It doesn't matter much because most folks don't look at the project page, but the talk page that goes with it is the most important page. Anybody can edit the project page, but non-project members editing in controversial ways would be frowned upon. The quote (in the box), of course, is inviolable, but it would be nice to label it as a quote and give a source, maybe in a footnote like "The original agreement was confirmed by e-mail among the signatories and made public for the first time on this page."

Well, all that is just petty wiki-details. Whatever improves the encyclopedia is ok with me. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Participants list

I always took the participants list here as the people who worked on the statement itself on behalf of their agencies, and indeed there is an asterisk denoting original participants. Tim Weinheimer of Ketchum was one of those with an asterisk. In this dif User:Gur at Ketchum replaced Weinheimer's name with their own, with no edit note. I reverted that, as information was lost and no reason was given for the change. If the story is that Gur is now present in WP and Weinheimer is no longer editing WP (and I don't know what the story is), that should be addressed in some way other than replacing Weinheimer's name. Don't know how, but information on the original participants should not be removed. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, particularly when almost since the first day this list was posted it has included agencies who were not present in developing the statement itself, and the asterisk you mention is intended to denote precisely that. Likewise, the asterisk is defined as meaning the "agency and / or individual" so I figured this was clear as it needed to be.

FWIW, Tim Weinheimer was not in fact the Ketchum representative who worked on the statement; that was Katherine Watier Ong. Both have now left, and Gur Tsabar has taken over. I was on the phone with him when he added his name, so you can imagine why I found your revert a bit frustrating.

That said, I have been working over the past few weeks to reach out to participating agencies to reconfirm participation or not, and that is what I have sat down here to do today. So: lots more changes will be coming in the next few hours, and I'll use this as an advisory to be more clear about what listed names mean. Open to further input. WWB (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I see. You are treating this like a webpage. OK.

I also thought that participation was at the corporate level but that appears to be not the case; participation appears to be at the level of individuals working at various agencies, probably with some sign off from their managers.

The list of participants should be flipped so that the person is first, followed by their agency.

There should be a subsection listing the names of the people who were at the original meeting, followed by their agencies.

Doing it that way there is no need for the asterisk, which was indeed confusing. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The participation is indeed at the corporate level, however in order to function as a group, each agency must identify someone to be the actual point of contact. And in order for that to mean something, I have pushed each individual representative to establish a user account so they might be reached by Wikipedia volunteers if need be (and it has come in handy at times). It's my goal to make sure they all fill out their user pages with a simple "hi there", but it's not altogether unlike herding cats. And re: the asterisk, I think you're right, I need to write out a short section explaining who was at the table initially. Thanks for the feedback. WWB (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Problems

So this has been around for three years now. I wanted to see what the result of the initiative has been.

The only way to do that, is to go look at the users contribs. Probably 80% of the accounts listed here have done nothing except write inappropriate advertising on their userpages, like User:Chris Perry Weber Shandwick. On Monday I am going to tag all the ones that violate WP:USERPAGE, like that one does, for speedy deletion.

Most of this page is taken up with listing media responses to the initial initiative (big shocker, given that these are all PR firms) and. I think instead the page should list here Wikipedia articles that have been worked on, and firms and accounts that worked on them. I can imagine some people might not like that as they will take it as further advertising for this initiative but in my view this would be transparent and would allow the community to actually review what has been done. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC) (redact garble Jytdog (talk) 02:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC))

Hi, Jytdog. As the creator of this essay and the leader of this initiative, I have serious misgivings about your announcement here, and am asking you to pause your plans in favor of a discussion about what this page is for. Responding to a very narrow point, if you have concerns about the content of any user pages, why not reach out to those individuals first? If you have content concerns, surely they can be addressed short of deletion. More broadly, the point is not necessarily for all of these accounts to be active, but that they exist, and provide a point of contact at each firm. This is why I have taken steps to keep the list current, with updates as recently as December. Overall, I'm happy to discuss what has been done, and what is planned for the future. Looking forward to your feedback. WWB (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi WWB. I do know that you have driven this page and are one of the originators.

fwiw, I believe that for the most part you "get" WP and are working here in good faith under the principles in the statement....however I find your defensiveness in the response above to be both surprising and unproductive. I also think that your should get clear in your own mind about what every page in Wikipedia space is for and who OWNs any page within WP. If you want to set up some external website for this collaboration, please feel free to do so.

I spent some time yesterday looking to see what has come of this statement and what it expresses, hoping to find really great results - a bunch of examples of people following these principles, articles improved, etc.

I found a few that I already knew of -- you, Mary, and some others but most of what i found is described above. I am sorry that you cannot see how the "padding" of this list with people who have done nothing in WP but abuse it to promote themselves, undermines the credibility of this effort (not to mention, violates WP policy on userpages). You should reach out to those folks.

I do intend to start improving this page. The laundry list of media cites has no place here per RECENTISM, LAUNDRYLIST, and NOTWEBHOST (but again, if you want to set up an external website and list them there per the normal "in the news" webpage, please feel free). I also intend to start listing users and articles that have been worked on. I have been treating this page somewhat as "yours" but I am going to stop doing that soon. Nobody WP:OWNs any page in WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I hope it's not unproductive to ask you to pause on making large changes to a page that has been relatively stable over time, and which I have been working on recently. Of course I do not WP:OWN it, but I think its announced purpose is quite clear, and it sounds to me like you are proposing an entirely new role for it to play. That's what I'd like to discuss. (And I am grateful that you posted here first, rather than just hacking away.)

As one who maintains my own list of articles I've worked on for clients on my WWB Too user page, I'm hardly opposed to such a listing—but the addition would be news to the signatories to this page, who are its contributors and constituents. Also, I'm open to discussion about what to do with the accumulated press links. Perhaps this could be summarized, perhaps the long list could be moved to a sub-page. Can you explain what changes you would like to see made first? WWB (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Companies have signed on to the statement, and they do that off-wiki. The statement =/= "this page". This page is in Wikipedia space, not "the collaboration of PR companies" space. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Chiming in briefly to say I'm on board with the idea of listing out pages worked on through this initiative. I would find it helpful to see other examples of this process in action, and I imagine others would too. Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Mary. Your work here has been in my view a shining example of these principles in action. So glad you are around. Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Also thanks, Mary. I'm concerned that Jytdog's proposal below changes the purpose of the list, which since day one has been to indicate which agencies support the statement, and who is the point person for each one. An accounting of which participants have actively worked on Wikipedia since then is a fine idea, but I would recommend a separate subsection, and perhaps even a different page. In Mary's case and my own, the list may become unwieldy; in others, there may be nothing to list—and that should be OK, too. WWB (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I can tell you from experience and talking with other folks that merely looking at the contribs from the signatories is not the best (or, frankly, even a good) measure of the success of this initiative. For example, some see their role as helping companies find their voice here--on Talk pages and noticeboards and the like--rather than serving as an intermediary. Others take a more direct close-to-the-markup role, which looking at contribs would surface. Either approach is valid, I think. In any event, though a fuzzy measure, you've seen a gigantic drop-off in company-behaving-badly-on-Wikipedia stories since this launched. Even Jimbo acknowledged this in a 60 Minutes outtake (now behind a paywall)--fanboys are a bigger problem now than PR folk. -- Philgomes (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That's great! My focus is on this function of this document in the WP community and what it communicates to the community. Please do not derail this this discussion with OFFTOPIC discussion of what kind of advocacy editing is more destructive, paid or unpaid. It is not answerable and is a distraction. Jytdog (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, would you please explain what "helping companies find their voice here--on Talk pages and noticeboards and the like-" means? Does that mean that the PR rep is here in WP writing on talk pages and notice boards, or that they are advising clients how to do that themselves? If the former, every edit to any page in WP on behalf of a client is "paid editing" (an "edit" is a change to any page in WP) that a) needs to be disclosed and b) is viewable in the person's contribs. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

My very strong preference is that a PR rep advise clients how to operate within Wikipedia. Sometimes from a client-service perspective, that doesn't work so well, and so the PR person becomes the ambassador on behalf of the company. All of this must occur above-board and in neither case should the person interacting with Wikipedia directly edit an article for which there is a COI. -- Philgomes (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what you meant.Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Focus

So among "signatories", which of these entities has actually had people come and work in WP? What have those people actually done? These are very normal questions to ask, after reading this.

To have the answers to those questions here in the page, I am proposing:

1. That we divide the main list, into entities that have had people come work in WP since the statement was made, and those who haven't.
2. For the entities that are working in WP, I propose that following the entity name, the list of accounts that have actually edited on behalf of that entity, be listed. If somebody wants to flag some person as the contact, that would be fine but please keep in mind that editors deal with editors -- I am not going to contact someone's boss; it would also be interesting to flag whoever the original participant was so that this historical information isn't lost (this was discussed a bit above).
3. Each of the users ~should~ have a list of the articles they have worked on, on their user page, or at least linked from there. Depending on how many articles there are, it ~might~ be interesting/useful to have subsections for each entity, listing the articles on which people working for the firm have improved. That could get unwieldy and I could see not doing this.

There you go. Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Recalling your edits of a few months back, related to clarifying what the asterisks meant, I could see a section that identified specific attendees at the original meeting, as well as the original signatories on day one. Then a separate section for current participants. Then a (perhaps collapsed) section of lapsed memberships (by agency, not by username).

Following that, I'd be interested to see what you have in mind to list individuals and their interactions. Would it be a table? Generally speaking, I think it's good hygiene to list pages where one has interacted on one's own user page, as I do. (In theory, these could be added by someone else, if arguably bad form.)

But I still am cautious about the idea of using this page to list out who has worked on what. After all, the page exists to memorialize the statement. What anyone has done since is an interesting question, but not quite the purpose of this page. WWB (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It is an empty bunch of bytes without being able to see what came of it. And as noted above, almost all of the companies who signed on appear to have done nothing in WP. Follow through matters. Am fine with not listing articles, but editors who edited under this should be listed Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement never meant to imply that the participants themselves would be active on Wikipedia. The follow-through that matters, I believe, is for the agencies listed to continue to stand behind it by virtue of having a current employee with a registered account listed. That is why I revisited the list late last year and began moving out signatories where the individual had left and I could not find a replacement. If the list was left to stagnate, I would understand your concern. But mine is that you're asking it to fulfill a new purpose that was not intended. WWB (talk) 23:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps not to you. To pretty much any member of the community I would reckon this commitment... you know, meant something to the participants and to the editing community, that we would all be able to see. If it was just a little meaningless event we should delete this and think about something else. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The proposed approach conflates public relations with paid editing. Also, consider that anyone who signs a statement like this is probably a very senior person at their respective firms who would not necessarily be the ones operating in Wikipedia. Further, all that this would do is create a list of people who would be considered "damaged goods" irrespective of their actual behavior on Wikipedia. -- Philgomes (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Based on your indenting you are replying to the my original post. I don't know how to unpack the levels of misrepresentation of what I have written. I will briefly address your first sentence. This document arose from scandals about undisclosed paid editing and badly managed disclosed paid editing. When members/employees of PR firms enter WP to advocate for clients or for their own firms, that is paid editing. Under PAID there is no difference between a freelancer and a PR person present in WP advocating for clients. There is no conflation in the OP. Jytdog (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so what's wrong with advocating--not COI editing, but advocating--for a client's interest on Wikipedia so long as that relationship is disclosed and takes place in forums where that is acceptable? -- Philgomes (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

With respect to not violating the TOU or WP:PAID, there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, advocating for anything or anyone is a violation of two policies, WP:NPOV and WP:PROMO. If somebody is here to "advocate for a client's interest" they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. This is the more fundamental issue. Jytdog (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Comments on refactoring

@Jytdog: - Your interest and intrepidness on this issue is appreciated, as there are not a lot of Wikimedians interested in working in this effort. However, please keep the rhetoric civil, as I felt you strayed into bad faith characterizations of people's actions. In response to your queries and proposals:

• The tile of this page is "Statement from ..." and serves the role as a statement and marker of a specific event and initiative. If you feel other functions related to this need to be served, propose other pages or subpages to supplement this.
• The list of coverage is directly relevant to the page and you have not stated how it violates anything listed in WP:NOTWEBHOST. If it's a matter of aesthetics, there are ways to configure the appearance and readability (such as section hiding) but there is historic significance in noting that this statement was not launched into the ether. It had the attention of the major PR and corporate professional world, and has resonance. Removing this list would completely wipe away this portion of the effort.
• The new work you propose to analyze the contributions of PR communications is an interesting one, but should be separate/supplementary to this page.

Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I will turn the question about the laundrylist to you. Please review Wikipedia:Project namespace and explain how the laundrylist fits within the intended uses of project namespace or with the mission of WP somehow, if you want to make an WP:IAR argument.

Listing users from the PR firms is something I will go to the mattresses for. Listing the pages improved is less important if the users have listed the pages they worked on; there should be a centralized list and I would think you would want one, but I won't push for that. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

So instead of answering, you just restore it. Great. Jytdog (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Laundrylist" is your terminology and has no formal status within our policies or in the community. Therefore, I can only guess that the meaning pertains to list of links to news coverage in Wikipedia namespace. That said, we have plenty of precedent for this. Not only is it useful, it is a well-established practice in the project namespace that goes back to the earliest days of Wikipedia, on pages such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_the_media and more specifically, Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2017. To simply revert it and call it "spam" is inaccurate and unproductive. As discussed earlier, if there is a desire for supplemental or contextual information, the proper place is on other pages. This page should be true to its original purpose. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Same thing you wrote below, so i will reply there. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

User pages

As I said I would do above, I have nominated some of the userpages for speedy deletion as they contain material promoting the firm or the person, and left notes at their talk pages as well: Koskim, Chris Perry Weber Shandwick, MichaelPWhite, CitizenMcCullough, Kwatierong, and Mbassik. The rest were OK enough, in my view. Others may differ of course. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

List of press coverage

This does not belong in WP space. Moved here for now

Extended content

Coverage Media Ad Age - Top PR Firms Say They Won’t Edit Wikipedia on the Sly - June 10, 2014 Al Jazeera America - Wikipedia Says Editors Must Disclose All Paid Contributions - June 16, 2014 BBC - PR firms pledge 'ethical' use of Wikipedia - June 12, 2014 Bulldog Reporter - Leading PR Firms Issue Statement to Improve Wikipedia - June 10, 2014 CNET - PR firms agree to play by Wikipedia's editing rules - June 10, 2014 CommProBiz webcast – Can Public Relations Professionals Do Right By Their Clients AND Wikipedia? – June 30, 2014 CommProBiz webcast - Can Public Relations Professionals Do Right By Their Clients AND Wikipedia? - June 10, 2014 Communique - Citation Needed (pp. 28-31) - July 2014 CyberAlert - PR Firms Promise to Comply with Wikipedia Rules - June 10, 2014 Digital Journal - PR firms agree to abide by Wikipedia rules - June 15, 2014 Fast Company - How to Succeed in Online PR? Get to Know the Wikipedia Community - July 24, 2014 Gawker - Eleven Major PR Firms Have Signed a Pledge Not to Surreptitiously Edit Their Client's Wikipedia Pages - June 11, 2014 Harvard Business Review - Narrowing the Chasm between PR Professionals and Wikipedia - June 10, 2014 Holmes Report - Marketing Firms Pledge Good Behavior on Wikipedia - June 10, 2014 Inc. – 8 Things You Need to Know About Wikipedia – June 13, 2014 Inc. - PR Firms Pledge to Behave Better on Wikipedia - June 11, 2014 InTheCapital - Washington PR Firms Promise to Stop Editing Wikipedia Pages - June 14, 2014 Marketing Interactive - No more sneaky Wikipedia edits, PR firms promise - June 16, 2014 Mediabistro/PRNewser - 7 Experts Weigh in on the PR/Wikipedia Agreement - June 12, 2014 O’Dwyer’s Renegotiating Paid PR Editing on Wikipedia – June 17, 2014 Council of of PR Firms Says Obey Wikipedia Rules (Which Many Don't) – June 20, 2014 Why public relations shouldn’t forget its publics (p. 18) - July 2014 Politico - Influence - PR Firms Will Back Off Client Wikipedia Edits - June 14, 2014 PR News - PR Insider: Your Wikipedia To-Do List - June 12, 2014 PR Week US Will PR agencies back up their Wikipedia pledges with action? – June 20, 2014 PR firms outline Wikipedia compliance in joint statement - June 10, 2014 Council of PR Firms joins Wikipedia compliance pledge - June 11, 2014 Peppercomm's Sam Ford: Our industry must learn Wikipedia is a community, not a landfill - June 13, 2014 Q&A: How Edelman enforces Wikipedia compliance among staffers, clients - June 13, 2014 MSLGroup, Weber Add Names to Wikipedia PR Ethics Framework - June 13, 2014 Eight More PR Firms Join Wikipedia Compliance Pledge - June 16, 2014 Ragan's PR Daily - PR Agencies Promise Not to Secretly Edit Wikipedia - June 12, 2014 Rosetta - 10 Tips to Navigate Complex Wikipedia Rules to Yield a Better Brand Reputation - June 11, 2014 San Francisco Chronicle - Major PR firms agree not to edit clients' Wikipedia entries - June 11, 2014 Silicon Republic - Wikipedia changes terms of service for PR firms changing company pages - June 17, 2014 Slate - Future Tense - Wikipedia Is Smoking Out Paid Editors - June 17, 2014 Social Media Today - Wikipedia: Leading Comm Firms Partner to Ensure Content Quality - June 10, 2014 Techdirt - Group Of Major PR Firms Pledge To Play Nice On Wikipedia - June 17, 2014 Techienews (UK) - Leading PR Firms promise Wikipedia of fair conduct - June 11, 2014 The Daily Dot – Major PR firms promise to play by Wikipedia's rules – June 10, 2014 The Drum - Ogilvy & Mather, Ketchum, Edelman and More Team to Uphold the Principles of Wikipedia - June 10, 2014 The Independent (UK) - Global PR firms sign agreement to stop abusing Wikipedia - June 11, 2014 The Register – Wikipedia insists paid editors reveal their bits in public – June 17, 2014 The Verge - PR firms promise to play fair on Wikipedia - June 11, 2014 Time Magazine - PR Firms Vow They Won’t Try to Game Wikipedia - June 10, 2014 Wall Street Journal - PR Firms Vow To Abide Wikipedia’s Rules on Conflicts - June 10, 2014 Wikipedia Signpost (pre-publication) - Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler - June 10, 2014 Wikipedia Weekly podcast - Episode #116 - Wikipedia and PR discussion - June 12, 2014 Wired.Co.UK – Wikipedia clamps down on paid editors and sockpuppetry – June 23, 2014 WUSF News – Making Sense of Wikipedia – June 22, 2014 German heise online - Advertising in Wikipedia: U.S. PR agencies publish Commitment (translated) - June 11, 2014 W&V - PR - agencies vow objectivity (translated) - June 12, 2014 ZDNet - Leading PR firms agree to manipulation of Wikipedia (translated) - June 11, 2014 Dutch De Telegraaf - Wikipedia en PR-bedrijven tekenen code "Wikipedia and PR firms sign code (translated), June 11, 2014 Blog Charter signatories Allison+Partners - Building a Bridge between PR and Wikipedia - June 10, 2014 Beutler Ink - Wikipedia and Public Relations: A Possible First Step in Repairing a Troubled Relationship - June 10, 2014 Burson Marsteller – Wikipedia Pledge and Policies – July 10, 2014 Edelman - Today's Multi-agency Wikipedia Statement - June 10, 2014 Ogilvy - A Multi-agency Commitment to Bridging the Gap with Wikipedia - June 10, 2014 Peppercomm The Innovation Mill – Our Stance on Wikipedia, PR & Ethics – June 23, 2014 Peppercomm (RepMan) - PR's Answer to the Camp David Accord - June 10, 2014 Porter Novelli - Bridging the Gap between Communicators and Wikipedia - June 10, 2014 Others Center for a Stateless Society - Missing Comma: Wikipedia vs. Public Relations Firms, Everyone Loses – June 13, 2014 Chartered Institute of Public Relations - "CIPR Signs Up to International Movement of Communications Agencies and Organisations To 'Do Right by Wikipedia'" - June 10, 2014 Chartered Institute of Public Relations/Ketchum - "International Agency Manifesto Pledges Respect for Wikipedia Community" - June 11, 2014 Don’t get caught – On PR, Wikipedia and the next thing you'll be trying to edit – July 15, 2014 EthicalWiki (David King) - Largest PR firms issue a joint ethics statement for Wikipedia engagement - June 11, 2014 Hits and Misses – Don’t be a phony: Wikipedia and PR – June 12, 2014 HMA Public Relations – Wikipedia and PR Pros – can we co-exist? – June 18, 2014 Holtz Communication + Technology Add Wikipedia editing as a communication competency or go home – June 17, 2014 The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #761 – June 23, 2014 The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #760 – June 16, 2014 The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #759 – June 9, 2014 Institute for Public Relations - Multi-Agency Commitment to Follow Wikipedia Rules - June 10, 2014 Keene Communications Thought Symposium - Toe the ethical line - June 16, 2014 Keene – PR agencies shouldn’t edit Wikipedia without making pledge – June 24, 2014 Keene - Keene pledges ethical use of Wikipedia - June 16, 2014 On the Record Online (podcast) – PR Firms Pledge to Obey Wikipedia's Terms of Use – July 10, 2014 PM Live – Comms agencies “intend to do right” by Wikipedia – June 30, 2014 Ragan’s PR Daily – Why 'Wikipedia editing' should be on your skills list – June 24, 2014 RepMan – Seriously? – June 17, 2014 Rosetta Marketing – [10 Tips for Editing Wikipedia Entries on Behalf of a Brand or Business http://www.slideshare.net/RosettaMktg/10-tips-for-36312214] – June 25, 2014 Shiny Shiny - PR firms pledge to stop unethical Wikipedia edits from now on - June 2014 Small Business Trends – Wikipedia to PR Firms: Sockpuppets Not Welcome – June 17, 2014 Spin Sucks – Global PR Firms Take Lead in Agreement with Wikipedia – June 19, 2014 Techlicious Blog – Wikipedia Now Requiring Full Disclosure of Paid Edits – June 17, 2014 The E Word – PR firms pledge to use Wikipedia ethically – June 20, 2014 The Firm Voice (Council of Public Relations Firms) - A Higher Purpose: Bridging the Gap Between Public Relations and the Wikipedia Community - June 19, 2014 The Wikipedian (William Beutler) - Can Wikipedia and PR Just Get Along? Here's a Possible New Way Forward - June 10, 2014 Wiki Strategies – When the PR industry does PR for itself – June 12, 2014 WOMMA - Anyone Can Edit Wikipedia, Doesn’t Mean They Should - June 12, 2014 Zeno Group – 4 Things: In Case You Want to Know More about Wikipedia – June 25, 2014

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What guideline informs your judgment that this doesn't belong in WP space? WWB (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I explained above, please don't make me repeat myself. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I see you've listed three guideline pages, but without linking to them, or pointing to specific wording. So it's not as clear to me as I think you intend. Nevertheless, I follow the basic argument that it was too much. My suggestion is to add a new section summarizing the coverage, and moving the full list to a sub-page of the statement page. WWB (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

NOTWEBHOST is actually policy. WP is not the webpage for the collaboration. A website for the collaboration would of course have an "in the news" page or section. WP is not here to promote this thing or show off how much PR it got (as I said above big shocker that PR companies would generate a lot of press when launching this). It is not appropriate. If you were to launch an RfC on this your position would go down in flames. Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

And yet, it almost sounds like an argument for a standalone WP entry. Not really suggesting that—although this section of this page could stand to be built out a bit. WWB (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

• I will be very happy to launch an RfC and call the community's attention to this self-congratulatory laundrylist. Does anybody really want to go there? Jytdog (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• The list should be removed. In some cases (such as WP:LTA), with reluctance, it is necessary to erect a memorial glorifying the success of those who seek to attack or exploit Wikipedia. However, the proposed list has no benefit to the project—that is, it does not benefit Wikipedia's project of building a neutral encyclopedia, and does not help repel undisclosed paid editors or the spam they create. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I dispute your point about "has no benefit to the project." Openly documenting which media outlets have covered this shows whether it has resonance within the industry and how widely known it is within the field and to the public. It is bizarre to me that any good Wikipedian would want to scrub WP:RS and WP:V information. That list is not, and was never meant to be, one sided as spam would be — it should include any and all coverage, including skeptical views, failures of the PRCOM agreement, et al. Finally, your comment that it "does not help repel undisclosed paid editors or the spam they create" requires proof or citation, or it is just conjecture. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    • We do not need to read media accounts to know that Wikipedia is near the top of Google searches, and that Wikipedia is a ripe plum that many PR groups would love to pluck. Our knowledge of how much the public knows about the problem will not help control it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
      • I think you misunderstand what that list is about. It pertains to all kinds of media coverage of this particular statement, and while most mention the initiative favorably, not all of it is positive, and that's a good thing. Also, there are many pages in project space that track media mentions, so singling out this particular case is puzzling. To wit: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_the_media and Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2017 are prime examples of pages in project space that are useful and track Wikipedia's impact in the public and collect links to illustrate this. This has been accepted practice for more than a decade. -- Fuzheado | Talk 13:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
        • It is really something that you are taking two pages about coverage of Wikipedia and using them to justify this effort at self-promotion by the PR industry. And btw see WP:LAUNDRYLIST which is widely cited; this is what i was citing - i sometimes don't do the WL thing as it gets old. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

You may view it as self-promotion, but the list does have a separate purpose: including press coverage establishes that the initiative was taken seriously within the PR industry, which can help others decide to join, and every one that does is another company more likely to follow Wikipedia's rules. Whether every single news item needs to be included may be a better conversation to have, but WP:LAUNDRYLIST is an essay and it is about articles. It never mentions Wikipedia namespace, and Andrew has demonstrated that Wikipedia maintains many lists in this namespace, even of news articles, for other purposes. Nevertheless, earlier in the thread I suggested a middle path, writing a summary of how it was received, moving links to a collapse-box or a sub-page. I still think this is a good possible compromise. WWB (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion that it was taken seriously by the PR industry is one of the most self-serving, overblown things I have seen written in a long, long time. You seem to have no self-awareness of your COI here. Which is ... ironic at best. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• User:Gamaliel instead of drive-by reverting why don't you come and have some cookies and tea and you know, participate in the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given how this discussion has gone so far, I'd rather wait until tempers have cooled. Thank you for the invite. Gamaliel (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

• I re-removed the list -- such an extensive listing does not belong in an essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, to your comment directed at me above—my "assertion" that it was taken seriously is matched by evidence: the very coverage you insist on removing. Rather than continuing to disrupt this effort, why not join and reinvigorate WikiProject Integrity instead? Watchdogging COI accounts is a valuable pro-Wikipedia activity, but interfering with those of us who are trying to help, I submit, does not. WWB (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Having such a long list is questionable at best. Look, why not take this entire statement off-wiki and place it on a webpage in which you can have any content you want. It really doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all, to be frank, Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong. This entire effort is about Wikipedia, and it makes no sense to remove it from the Wikipedia namespace—except to send a message that disclosed, rule-abiding COI contributors are unwelcome. This is wrong as well. WWB (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

"Rule-abiding COI contributors" don't get to publish a press release from their employers in Wikipedia space. Coretheapple (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

WWB, since you are accusing me of bad faith, please know that in my view getting the statement done was done was a good thing. As you well know in the real world, follow through is how you see that people actually took things seriously. We do not hype anything in Wikipedia. A burst of press coverage happens around lots of things. Wikipedians understand that we don't pay attention to passing media circuses - we pay mind to the long term relevance. My stance here that the laundrylist doesn't belong, and that we should add content to this essay showing the ongoing relevance and implementation of this are consistent with each other and with the normal way that we treat things in WP. And yes if you want to show other PR firms that this statement is relevant and matters, the best way to show that is what has happened beyond the initial 15 minutes of semi-fame. I am not opposed to listing a few major ones here btw, like the time, the wsj, and which ever PR trade rag is the most important. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Not bad faith, just bad effect. While I'd like to see the signatories be more active themselves, I believe the absence of Wikipedia-editing scandals by large firms in recent years can be plausibly interpreted as evidence of its success—and I would like to see more join. To that end, I've added a new section providing context for its announcement and what has happened since, live on the essay page now. WWB (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

this was a decent solution. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, glad we could arrive at a middle ground. WWB (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete this?

I don't want to nominate this for deletion, at least not yet anyway, but I have some serious doubts as to whether this page should be here at all. It seems to fall outside the boundaries of WP:ESSAY:

Essays, as used by Wikipedia editors, typically contain advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. The purpose of an essay is to aid or comment on the encyclopedia but not on any unrelated causes.

This essay seems to fall outside the scope of what a Wikipedia essay should be. It states, in an extremely self-serving manner, what outside parties wish to do in Wikipedia. It does not provide advice or thoughts from a Wikipedia standpoint. It is a statement of external opinion.

So it seems to me the question is not whether there should be a long list of citations in other media, but whether this essay belongs here at all. My initial view is to delete. Coretheapple (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. I think an MfD would probably fail and think it is fine that we make room in project space for a description of the collaboration. I do think this needs to be made useful to the WP community. We agree about the list of cites, yes. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I'm neutral on the cites. Coretheapple (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There's also Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement. Should this essay be folded into the article? The essay apparently exists to publish the full text of the Statement; I'm not sure if it's essential. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

ah, herding cats. Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I suppose as a technical solution, the text could be moved to wikisource and linked to from the CREWE article. I'm not sure yet this is the right thing to do, though. - Bri (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I see that I have the CREWE article watchlisted but I had totally forgotten it existed. Its own notability status is tenuous. Coretheapple (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

In fact, after reviewing that article's history and the coverage, such as it was, I've nominated it for deletion. This page might be worth preserving in some form, somewhere, but it's just not an essay. Wikisource is one possibility I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

MfD

For those who have not seen, Coretheapple has nominated this essay for deletion. MfD is a rather harsh measure, and I think mistaken. I have added my disagreement, citing WP:ESSAYPAGES. If "not an essay", what if it is presented as an information or supplemental page, per WP:INFOPAGES? As the above discussion shows, I am open to changing how this material is presented. However, I strongly object to forcing it off Wikipedia altogether. WWB (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

As I said at the MfD, you are free to write an essay on any subject, but I think that our practices on Wikipedia don't allow public relations companies to place content on the site. You had your say at the MfD, I responded. Seems a bit redundant to discuss it here. Coretheapple (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

You had not announced the MfD here, so I have. And I am open to repositioning the type of page this is, as mentioned in my last comment. WWB (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It is not necessary to "announce" (in this case, "denounce") an MfD on the talk page of an essay, as the MfD is announced on the page itself and pops up on the watchlist of every person following this essay. I had previously said here that I was considering nomming this for deletion and that was more than enough. Coretheapple (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal about a WikiProject or Guild or the like

In my !vote in the MfD, I said: One thing I have considering for a while, is whether there should be a WP:Wikiproject Paid Editing or the like (the name would be one of the hardest things) -- a sort of guild of paid editors within WP that would actually a) create and maintain best practices consistent with the policies and guidelines (per this statement); b) help educate new PR people who show up so we wouldn't have to spend so much time doing that; and c) of course be careful as hell to avoid becoming a lobbying group itself and to avoid doing bad things like peer reviewing each other's's proposed articles and content.

This is something you all would have to do, and then seek consensus for it. Not something I can do.

User:WWB Too and User:MaryGaulke in particular what do you think about that?

I have posted notice of this at Jimbo's talk page in another post I made there (here), at WT:COI.... let's see where this goes (maybe no where, but hopefully gracefully any way it goes) Jytdog (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Would this be much like Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation, or something different? isaacl (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can tell that was something started by volunteers. I am talking about paid editors setting up a project or "guild" that they run, with community ... tolerance at least, if not support. Taking this essay (which passed MfD by a mile) and formalizing it a step further. To get that.. tolerance, its members would have to rigorously follow PAID and other policies and guidelines, and not do things that would draw condemnation (like advertising on WP or implementing each others' suggestions), and would need to police themselves, throwing out people who didn't behave likewise, yet welcoming any paid editor who was willing to behave likewise. Mentor each other. Be fully "white hat", to use that analogy. I am coming to the view that the editing community should have a clear path for paid editing that complies with the policies and guidelines - some kind of signs that point to this reality. What we have been doing leaves the field wide open for "black hat" paid editors - the public has no idea there is a difference. There is one. That is the part the community can do. But "white hat" paid editors would need to do more as well. The volunteer community cannot form the guild and run it, if it is really going to work... I think. This is kind of a way to "regulate" the paid editing industry, by supporting Industry self-regulation, within the bounds of already existing high level community policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of who started the previous WikiProject, would the goals of your proposed guild be much like the stated goals of WikiProject Cooperation, which includes "support[ing] ethical, transparent paid editors that opt-in to collaborative efforts to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals, serve the public's interest and avoid even the perception of impropriety"? Since the greatest barrier to any WikiProject is gaining sufficient participation, I think it is worthwhile to combine similar efforts where there is significant overlap. Plus if this direction is pursued, I don't believe it will work as an isolated guild; involvement from the various different interested parties is important to establish a collaborative atmosphere, rather than a combative one. isaacl (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed but the Cooperation Project is dead. For something like this to work and be sustainable and effective, in my view it needs to organically grow, like the American Bar Association did, from people who actually do it. This Statement is a natural seed. For sure, for it to work it needs at least tolerance from the volunteer community. Jytdog (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course I noticed; its current dormancy should be examined for any lessons learned that can improve the success of another initiative. Then again, nearly all WikiProjects become inactive, for a variety of common reasons (including editors preferring to spend time on other matters, a lack of desire to invest sustained effort on the project, and a lack of clarity on project goals and methods to achieve them). A revived approach may stimulate some of the members of the old project into participating.

There's no need to convince me that paid editors should build on this statement to move forward; the ball has been in their court ever since the statement was released. isaacl (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for talking here. I am going to sit back and hear what folks have to say... I have written too much already. :) Jytdog (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

No sane editor is going to admit to paid editing with the kind of treatment that honest people get on this project. Folks are better off lying.--v/r - TP 22:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact of this statement and the activities of people who have signed it, contradict you. I get it that you are bent and bitter due to how you have been treated, and I am sorry about that. But I wish you would be more thoughtful in these discussions. Jytdog (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm very thoughtful. Look at the project page here and the accounts for the PR reps. How many of those accounts have made more than a dozen edits? Either they aren't participating and had no intentions to, or they have other accounts. It's WWB, whom we all know, and maybe one or two others.--v/r - TP 01:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Leaving aside the article-related edits of the signatories for a moment(*), I will say that this page is a very PR-response to an issue: see a problem with credibility, reach an agreement to affirm one's commitment, and put out a press statement. The absence of any followup to achieve the objective in the last sentence of the statement is disappointing, but perhaps not unsurprising. Maybe there's a lot of activity on the mailing list referenced on this page in support of following the bulleted items in the statement, or a lot of work underway that can't be discussed due to confidentiality, but without any communications reaching out to the Wikipedia community, no one can tell. Some kind of outreach to demonstrate how the parties are complying with Wikipedia polices, for instance, would be welcome, with specific examples that have been anonymized as necessary. (*) I haven't looked at their edits, and probably won't, so I can't offer any opinion as to whether or not they seem to align with the statement. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

This would involve me, so I am dropping in: I recently created the article Burt Prelutsky as a paid editor. The subject is verifiably notable. I disclosed my paid contribution on my user page, and to the best of my understanding and knowledge have followed all relevant protocol as a paid editor. Also, I created this article using my only user account— I did not create a temporary account or a throw-away one to create this article. The subject was duly notified of the limits of my power to control his article's content, and was warned that once created, neither he nor I would be able to limit what the article might contain, including possible unpleasant information. I have been as "white hat" as I know how to be in doing this, despite the fact that paid editing is pre-labeled "black hat editing" by Wikipedia's guidelines (which, in the end, I find a bit insulting, really, at least at a personal level, though there are lots of others who deserve the black hat label and to which I welcome them, the bastards!). In my case, the subject was bona fide notable, the subject desired an article, the subject was willing to pay me to create the article, no one else had attempted to or was interested in creating the article, I created it, I declared my COI, I was paid by the subject, and it looks like all has gone well so far. But I hate wearing a black hat. Can't I wear a white one? (I'd settle for brilliant silver or maybe gainsboro).  :-) KDS4444 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As you know, throwaway accounts are viewed with disfavor (which reflects on the subject) and are against policy as socks. Nor is it contrary to the subject's best interests for paid editors to declare that they are paid, because when that doesn't happen the articles are usually tagged "COI" or worse. In the case of Mr. Prelusky's article that was not necessary, as you declared your paid status and the article was not promotional. I've looked at it; I am not sure I agree with your assessment re notability. I've looked into ProQuest and found some cites that may help. I think you undemphasized his early 1960s column-writing but I am not sure about that either. Quite a few columns on ProQuest, I'm trying to figure out how to deal with them. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

ProQuest and Newspapers.com indicate that your client was a notable film critic in the 1960s - which was not in your draft. That and the awards combine to satisfy my notability qualm, though I guess other editors may differ. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"because when that doesn't happen the articles are usually tagged "COI" or worse." The problem with this statement is that you cannot prove it. You can't know what you can't know. For every COI edit that is caught, how can you know that there aren't 100 more that are uncaught? There is no way to measure it and so there is no way to know that policy changes have been effective. No one knows how much is happening underground and undeclared. Freelancer websites only scratch the surface. What we could measure, though, is how many disclosed paid edits versus undisclosed paid edits happen to get a general feel of how many people believe it's more advantageous to not declare.--v/r - TP 17:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to quantify, admittedly. If you have a constructive suggestion of offer as an alternative to paid editors declaring, you have the floor. Coretheapple (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Check out what I wrote to Tryptofish on the COI talk page. If we make the 'rules' for COI editing more visible, we can give consumers ammunition to claim contratual obligations aren't being met, and not paying the editors, when they don't declare. The point being to cut off the funding for undeclared editors. But the only way to do that is to get the knowledge to the people paying. And to do that, we have to make it visible both when they are navigating Wikipedia AND when they are searching for articles on themselves.--v/r - TP 18:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

There certainly is merit to the idea of producing a kind of "consumer guide" to potential purchasers of paid editing services. For example, why not expect such editors not just to go through the motions and drop a piece of half-thought-out dreck on the project, but produce something reflecting sources that are undeniably usable and of good quality. Why not demand that they have access to databases? That's one of the things that can be required by the consumer of the paid editing services. Too many paid editors produce either promotional material that they hope will slip by, or don't even bother to learn about their own clients. They take the money and run. That's bad for everyone except for the editor on the gravy train. Coretheapple (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What we have been doing leaves the field wide open for "black hat" paid editors - the public has no idea there is a difference. There is one. That is the part the community can do. But "white hat" paid editors would need to do more as well. I couldn't agree with this more. I'd love to see an active WikiProject around this topic and would be happy to assume a major role in leading it and setting out guidelines. Mary Gaulke (talk) 00:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You had me at "would be happy to assume a major role in leading it..."! ¡Adelante! KDS4444 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm also intrigued by this idea. In the past the concept of an "approved status" has been discussed, including on the email list to which MaryGaulke and I belong. Previously the notion was that it would ideally have some kind of imprimatur of the community—but we always recognized this is not something the community would, or even necessarily could be able to support. If it is to become a thing, it would indeed have to be supported (and policed) by paid contributors such as ourselves. To that end, I should note: I would be uncomfortable endorsing KDS4444's approach, as I've seen on the Burt Prelutsky article. The disclosure is noted, as indeed it is required. But I am mindful always (as I believe Mary is as well) that the most pro-community approach is to refrain from direct editing of client articles, and to work through talk pages instead. I would consider this a requirement of any "guild" that I would put my name behind. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree about direct editing, but I can understand the other side too. Re Prelutsky, ordinarily I wouldn't work on an article that began as a paid product, but for some reason I found him intriguing -- and I'm already being harassed for trying to improve it. I can understand why people want articles, and why they might hire someone to write one for them. To say "one of these days your day will comes" may not satisfy many people who want their day or their company's day in the sun. I felt the same way about Arizona artist Hal Empie, whose work I admire and whose article was commenced by a COI editor, his daughter. Coretheapple (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Mary and WWB_Too, very happy! Glad you are both interested. Am interested to hear more voices here. If we get reasonable consensus here I will want to post someplace more central to get wider-yet buy-in on the community side. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Just fyi, i am making a last round of head-checks for initial buy-in from the community before I would feel ready to start working on this. Threads are in three places:

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Guild_or_WikiProject_of_paid_editors

Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#A_last_headcheck

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Guild_of_paid_editors_notion

User:WWB Too and User:MaryGaulke I don't know if you are reaching out to signatories to work on assessing/gaining consensus in that community for this. That buy-in would be essential for this to work and it would be useful to see if it is likely or not. Perhaps this is a lead balloon there. Am a bit concerned. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've shared this post in the CREWE Facebook group and with some other friends, so hopefully we'll keep gathering support. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

indirect editing

As a follow-up on discussions at the Montreal mWikimania:

Without mentioning names, I have become aware that one or more of the paid editors signing the statement may have engaged in the practice of editing WP indirectly, by assigning jobs to contractors who do the actual editing; I believe that in some cases the editor or editors may have prepared the material for the contractor to add, or provide material to a client for them to add. I consider this would be a violation of the terms of use, unless the articles are explicitly declared by the principal as well as the agent or client . The analogy is a firm preparing term papers for students to submit. Just as such material is plagiarism and academic dishonesty, so would such articles be undeclared paid editing. The TOU are unambiguous that every party in the chain must declare. Doc James, jytdog, (and others), do you agree I have stated the policies correctly, and do you you think we need to revise our statement about COI to be more explicit here? (and if any of the paid editors wish to defend the practices, this should not be taken as an admission that they have engaged in them). DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

This is how Mike Woods (LegalMorning) says that he operates. It would be upsetting if somebody who had signed the Statement is doing this.

If a signatory has been doing this, please go back and disclose all of this that has happened and promise to stop doing it going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC) (striking Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC))

To be more clear, if someone is writing content about X for pay, and gives that content to a representative of X, and then some editor then goes and adds that content to our article about X directly, without disclosing at least COI and without putting the content through peer review before it publishes, then the paid writer is not acting as a good-faith member of the community but rather is participating in violating the spirit and letter of COI and perhaps PAID. "I never looked at the article to see what happened" is not a reasonable answer. I am less concerned about past action (I understand people may have been foolish enough to sign NDAs in the past) but that cannot be an excuse in the future...

Who is doing this? Jytdog (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree this is a concern. With Mister Wiki having created significant issues they should not be on this list. And maybe the list is not very useful anyway. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, WWB and I have actually been having a conversation around the same lines. While I think we all want this statement to function as a statement of good faith for editors who intend to do well, we both think it makes sense to define specific criteria and processes for joining and, if necessary, for expulsion. To that end we will likely be planning some sort of congress of statement signatories to determine how we can self-govern our group a bit more proactively.

I'll also note that I encouraged JacobMW/Mister Wiki to join as a gesture to show that he intends to adapt his approach to editing to be more in line with the standards of this group and the Wikipedia community. Hopefully his engagement with this group can provide him some guidance as he learns more about COI editing standards.

Thanks, all, for your continued input and help. Mary Gaulke (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me, MaryGaulke. I understand how I really got off on the wrong foot with the community through my recent mistakes, though since signing this statement I've been following all of the guidelines and policies extra carefully as they pertain to COI & paid editing. Let me know how I can help. It’s been super beneficial being able to speak with you and WWB to make sure I do my best not to make any future mistakes. JacobMW (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Finally getting a chance to weigh in here. I share DGG's concerns about the recent behavior described. I only became aware of it after JacobMW signed the petition, and my initial reaction was one of skepticism. There's no question he did not understand what he had asked of the two veteran editors, who made a grave mistake. However, I have since spoken with JacobMW, and I'm persuaded that the error was one of ignorance, not ill intent. (That he is using his real name on-wiki should count for something.)

As MaryGaulke suggests, this reveals a weakness in the statement not previously contemplated—at least not by me—that it can be used as a face-saving gesture. That said, it's not far off the original concept: some of the firms who had signed on had presumably not followed the rules before, and were now putting themselves on the record as choosing to do so. Likewise, JacobMW's future work must be disclosed, and anyone who works for him must disclose their client connections as well.

Also as Mary suggests, I think it is a good idea to hold a discussion around creating a new set of criteria for maintaining good standing, plus a clear mechanism for removal should future rule-breaking be determined. I also would like non-signatories' involvement as well; for this to mean something, it needs buy-in from interested community members as well. WWB (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

In the fundamental statement, there is no positive affirmation of the mission of Wikipedia, and no forswearing of efforts to abuse or misuse WP.

How would the signatories of this statement feel, about adapting something like the following?

The mission of Wikipedia is provide the public with knowledge. To the extent that we can help create or improve a Wikipedia article about a person, organization, or product -- to help add content to Wikipedia from which people can learn from the story of that person, product, or organization -- we are happy to do so. We do not encourage the abuse of Wikipedia for visibility, marketing, or SEO purposes. That is not what Wikipedia is for. We understand that our competitors may encourage clients to exploit Wikipedia, and we hope that such advice is not heeded.

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)