![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please mark items as Done once added/incorporated
This is the discussion page for the article on paid editing or paid advocacy in Wikipedia. If you'd like to participate and you are a paid editor or have a direct conflict of interest, please leave comments and help provide sources but do not edit the draft directly. Remember that the purpose of any Wikipedia article is neither to criticize or promote topics, but simply to summarize what independent, published, reliable sources has already written.
Hi Ocassi. A few thoughts:
Some things the page might mention are that
In such circumstances, a paid Wikipedia advocate might actually make sense; as would supervision of Wikipedia by something like the press complaints commission. -- J N 466 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
PR representatives should not normally edit Wikipedia articles, unless it is to remove obviously wrong or defamatory material (eg WP:AUTO). PR firms have a track record of "improving" articles by removing negative material, which is usually spotted by other editors very quickly. The best approach is for PR representatives to post on the talk page, identifying themselves clearly and stating what the problem is. There are enough mechanisms ( WP:3O, WP:RFC etc) within Wikipedia to ensure that an article is neutral, without surreptitious tweaks from "ethical engagement".-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You did a really great job, Ocaasi. I don't think I have much to offer here. Silver seren C 17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the great feedback and copyediting. I thought it was ready-enough, so I moved it live. More comments or suggestions or edits welcome. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 02:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There have been some suggestions that this article might be better titled Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia with 'Paid editing on Wikipedia' as a redirect. Some of the incidents are not obviously paid advocacy, although they fall under the broader category of conflict of interest. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian editing conflict, or Jimmy Wales' edits. I like including these along with PR agencies, governments, and companies, because they are similar in nature. But I don't want the title to be too narrow. What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 11:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A note: I know that Liam Wyatt ( User:Wittylama) wasn't paid for his stint at the British Museum, and I think there are probably others that are in a similar situation ( Lori Byrd Phillips?). The article uses phrases like "hired" that misleadingly imply that they were paid (despite not saying that directly). This is particularly relevant in Liam's case, since his British Museum job was done out of his own pocket because he was concerned about COI. Some Wikipedians-in-Residence have been paid, some have taken academic credit, et cetera. I don't want to correct the article directly—I've worked with them in person, I care about them and their roles, and thus don't want to edit with a certain COI—but the variation in paid status among Wikipedians-in-Residence is probably relevant to the article, and the current wording can definitely be improved. I'll see if I can find a decent source showing that Liam wasn't paid, but in the meantime, I'd appreciate it if someone would change the wording on good faith. Thanks, {{ Nihiltres| talk| edits| ⚡}} 14:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Wyatt, 25, the first Wikipedian in residence, is a Wikipedia administrator from Australia. His position is unpaid, but Mr. Wyatt said the mission was worth subsidizing with his personal savings.
Briefly - the article looks ok. I'd think I'd mention that the COI guideline goes back to 2004 (as "Vanity Pages") and was updated in October 2006 to be Conflict of Interest - better check details. A couple of other things I might add are mere details.
However, about WP:GLAM and paid Wikipedians-in residence. I think there have been 2 or 3, with roughly 10 others being unpaid. They are short-term internship type positions, completely transparent and overseen by non-paid Wikipedians. Their jobs basically come down to encouraging Wikipedians to take advantage of the public non-profit institution's resources and encouraging people within the institutions to help donate material (e.g. photos and artwork) to Wikipedia. I don't think any of them have directly edited their institutions main article. Only one of the names mentioned here is correct.
So in short, on paid WiRs there doesn't appear to be anything totally outrageous or malicious, but the text is wrong both in detail and in its overall emphasis. Smallbones ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Somebody put up a COI notice on this section (which I deleted), asking for help with a COI. Perhaps somebody misunderstood what i said above. I don't think I have any serious COI here, just some info that I can't cite and won't put in the article (actually this is quite common in editing, but mostly for material where I forget where I got it from ;-) ). I did some minor editing - mostly rearranging - in the GLAM section. I removed the name of one editor for which there was no cited material saying he is paid. The article didn't exactly say he was paid, but the placement or context certainly suggested it. I don't guarantee the truth of the paragraph, but there are now at least minimally reliable sources for everything there. If anybody thinks the rearranged material is worse than the original, please revert it. Smallbones ( talk) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Fred was making some fairly significant cuts from the article, including the entire WikiScanner section, because it was not obviously 'paid editing'. That's a fair criticism and the better solution than removing the content is just moving the article and tweaking the introduction to make the main topic conflict of interest editing with paid editing/advocacy as a subtopic. I regret doing this without broader discussion, but frankly I'd rather see the article maintain its comprehensive coverage of incidents rather than remove several of them because of a title-related technicality. Feedback welcome. Ocaasi t | c 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Although Kohs' press release is not a reliable source in the general sense of the word, it is a reliable source for Kohs' actions and views. I agree with Orangemike there, but I'm willing to discuss it. Ocaasi t | c 22:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's a possible reference about paid editing and COI issues. I may be biased because the article discusses a company I have a connection to, so would rather others judge the WP:RS of this:
Una empresa ofrece artículos por encargo y asegura mantener el espíritu de objetividad de la enciclopedia (One company offers custom made items and ensures to maintain the spirit of objectivity of the encyclopedia)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I have received some criticism that articles I recently wrote were too closely paraphrased from reliable sources. I am tagging the page so others can review the text and we can work on improving any instances of close paraphrasing. Ocaasi t | c 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Some images that could be useful
I am failing to see why paid or unpaid Wikipedian-in-Residence involved in upload of images from various museums would be perceived as potential COI. Commons is a separate project which does not have any COI policy and is generally happy to take any image from anybody as long as image is in scope and proper license is provided. Mentioning that Wikipedian-in-Residence were involved in uploading images to Commons in this article suggests that that might be considered COI situation. That is misleading and should be corrected. -- Jarekt ( talk) 14:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll suggest that GLAM participants more or less leave this alone (as I should have). There is nothing accusing or inflammatory here. But the real objection is whether the section is out of place. By putting the section here it looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation (a very, very terrible name - you don't have to be paid to cooperate on Wikipedia!) are using GLAM as an example of how paid editing can work well. That context just makes mention here completely out-of-line. I'd prefer the article be moved out of article space for the time being. It's great as a history of paid editing and related topics (but not of all conflict of interest editing - a bottomless pit), that should be in user space or an essay - but it carries too much ideological baggage to be an article (for now). Smallbones ( talk) 01:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Although not implicated in any controversy, many Wikipedia editors have partnered with galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, to assist them in sharing their content on Wikipedia and its sister projects. [1] [2] Most of the Wikipedians are volunteers, but a few have worked in paid positions.
Liam Wyatt was the first Wikipedian-in-Residence, working at an unpaid position at the British Museum in 2010, [3] [4] organizing events and encouraging editing of relevant articles, but not editing them himself. citation needed In 2011 the US National Archives and Records Administration took on part-time paid Wikipedian-in-Residence Dominic McDevitt-Parks, who worked on transcribing archived documents into searchable text on Wikipedia's sister project Wikisource. [5] [6] [7] [8] McDevitt-Parks helped upload about 90,000 documents to Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia image repository. [9]
The British Library sought out its own paid Wikipedian-in-Residence for several months in 2012, offering an annualized salary of £30,768 for "reviewing, improving and creating content" on the encyclopedia as well as offering training sessions at the library. [10] [3]
Lori Byrd Phillips was a Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis; [1] [11] [12] she also worked on transferring images from the museum to Wikimedia Commons. [13]
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Here are a bunch of suggestions starting from the top of the article down. Hopefully they are helpful. Cheers User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for these edits! I made almost all of the changes, all of the grammatical ones, and most of the POV-related ones. I trimmed quotes, changed scandal to controversy in some places, tweaked phrasings for accuracy. I didn't address:
Those changes might be made at a later time. But I'm happy to discuss them. Thanks again.
{{Request edit}}
Please could an editor change "admitted" to "confirmed". "Admitted" sounds like there was some secrecy or duplicity involved, which there never was.
Microsoft knew they should not edit themselves. They wanted to get the entries corrected for what they though was bias. I think my mistake was that when I wrote that they had offered to pay me to edit Wikipedia, I didn't realize the number of ill-willed people who would assume that "edit" meant violating rules and doing things in secret: when in fact what I eventually did was to limit myself to the Talk pages, which the Wikipedia editor assigned to shepherd me had told me was the correct way to handle this situation: disclosure and raising issues for community discussion and editors' decisions in the Talk pages. I think the section in the Conflict of Interest might like to point out that in fact there was no conflict of interest problem, because things were done the right way: it would be good for the page to clearly say what the right way is, for people who find themselves in controversial situations.
Finally, please note that getting the ODF entry altered was not part of the offer or deal, which was about what Wikipedia had about OOXML. Microsoft wanted better information on OOXML, not worse on ODF, since they felt that OOXML had a decent technical approach for the standards debates. Looking at my original blog entry, I can see that was not clear, and maybe that contributed to the Slashdotter's panic. This section perpetuates the misapprehension.
Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 15:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I saw the back and forth in the edit history with Selina on connected contributors. It's kind of silly because every Wikipedia editor has a close connection on articles about Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I added the close connection template to the top for those who wish to disclose. This seems like the best approach to provide visibility into COI editing without implying it has resulted in a problem in the article. The template says "personal or professional" so anyone can use the template even if their COI is not as overt as paid editing.
Cheers. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is there a link to a PDF presentation? Or for that matter, why does it exist? It seems most unusual and there is nothing in it that couldn't appear as a Wikipedia: or User: space page.
Also, the number of self-references in this section is disturbing. I propose we trim the fat.- RunningOnBrains( talk) 08:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel like what's missing is an "arguments" section. We have all this history, but not a single place that consolidates all majority and minority viewpoints on the issue itself. Why do people edit with a COI and why does it often end disastrously? We could have a section up top that outlines the issue itself using mostly the same sources and information. Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Any objections to turning the giant paragraph listing the COI entities into a proper list? Having a single sentence with four dozen organizations and twenty references is a bit painful to read. 28bytes ( talk) 17:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
To do: Incorporate the below sources where appropriate into the article. It's currently out of date by 1 year.
already incorporated
|
---|
If you feel they are worth including:
Self-published with questionable notability:
See the sources in use:
I am the author of the report mentioned in the articles. User:Corporate Minion 22:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC) CIPRI just updated the CIPR article with the following news articles that would be useful here.
They have published ethical guidelines for PR professionals on Wikipedia. The primary theme is not to directly edit articles. User:Corporate Minion 15:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
|
DoneProbably the most comprehensive coverage of the PR/Wikipedia relationship to date
by IABC came out today.
Corporate Minion 14:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Done
Ocaasi t | c 17:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to do a copy edit of this article at some point, and I thought I'd note it here just in case someone wonders what I'm doing. It would include creating a tighter lead, tightening the writing in general throughout, removing any non-RS sources, and balancing the sections to that there's a proportionate amount of coverage in relation to the amount of coverage incidents received in the media, per UNDUE. Hope this is okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
In reaction to the BP situation, I've drafted a notice that I think would be helpful in informing readers of such situations. Still tweaking with the language. Input and suggestions appreciated. It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coretheapple/sandbox Coretheapple ( talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I realize that the Talk Page is not a forum but I'm a little confused by some of the conspiratorial tone to this page. I know students and faculty that edited their university's Wiki article, members of professional or charitable organizations who edit theirs, employees that tinker with their company's profile page, people working on a film who update production information, fans of a sports team working on that team's page. It's prevalent because often these are the people who care enough to spend the time working on the article. I'm not denying that there could be a conflict of interest, just that it happens, and I think it happens a lot.
The primary failing of those individuals mentioned in this article is that they worked on a computer that could be traced back to their offices. If they had made edits at some wireless cafe, there would be no scandal.
My point? I think that this kind of behavior happens on Wikipedia all of the time but it makes the news when it's a public official, a big PR firm or large corporation. While it needs to be stated in a nuanced way, I think these few examples are just those who "got caught" and don't deserve to be demonized in a way that makes it look like these companies/people are the only ones who ever edited an article on an organization they worked for, participated in or studied at or promoted.
For example, if you looked at articles of individuals and organizations in the entertainment world, you'd find a lot of self-edited profiles. That's not saying it's okay, just that it's common. If I tagged every acting/music profile I see that lacks a NPOV, I'd be busy for days. Newjerseyliz ( talk) 13:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(From the UP, the Florida Atlantic University (Press) Student Magazine w/link below)
User:Ocaasi, how about copying and pasting this at Talk:Wiki-PR, since that article might be kept as a stand-alone? Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The article on Wiki-PR is unlikely to show a notable corporation. INstead, the article focusses on the controversy about paid PR editing on Wikipedia. It seems to me that conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is a far better location for that information, properly cited, than an article on Wiki-PR which resembles a WP:COATRACK rather than an article on a pretty non notable PR company. Fiddle Faddle 11:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I am a frequent COI contributor and was just gleaming through this article. I noticed it contains a "Reception" section, which is the title we normally use for balanced reviews published by credible, independent academics and media. However, this section is actually used mostly to communicate the PR community's point-of-view. I would suggest it be renamed to something more representative of its contents. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted User:Biosthmors rewrite of the lead. "Controversy" is an excellent term to describe what's happening here, not simply "events" and WP:NOT is a WP *policy* which prohibits advocacy, not simply a guideline. Smallbones( smalltalk) 12:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Please mark items as Done once added/incorporated
This is the discussion page for the article on paid editing or paid advocacy in Wikipedia. If you'd like to participate and you are a paid editor or have a direct conflict of interest, please leave comments and help provide sources but do not edit the draft directly. Remember that the purpose of any Wikipedia article is neither to criticize or promote topics, but simply to summarize what independent, published, reliable sources has already written.
Hi Ocassi. A few thoughts:
Some things the page might mention are that
In such circumstances, a paid Wikipedia advocate might actually make sense; as would supervision of Wikipedia by something like the press complaints commission. -- J N 466 21:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
PR representatives should not normally edit Wikipedia articles, unless it is to remove obviously wrong or defamatory material (eg WP:AUTO). PR firms have a track record of "improving" articles by removing negative material, which is usually spotted by other editors very quickly. The best approach is for PR representatives to post on the talk page, identifying themselves clearly and stating what the problem is. There are enough mechanisms ( WP:3O, WP:RFC etc) within Wikipedia to ensure that an article is neutral, without surreptitious tweaks from "ethical engagement".-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
You did a really great job, Ocaasi. I don't think I have much to offer here. Silver seren C 17:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the great feedback and copyediting. I thought it was ready-enough, so I moved it live. More comments or suggestions or edits welcome. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 02:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
There have been some suggestions that this article might be better titled Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia with 'Paid editing on Wikipedia' as a redirect. Some of the incidents are not obviously paid advocacy, although they fall under the broader category of conflict of interest. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian editing conflict, or Jimmy Wales' edits. I like including these along with PR agencies, governments, and companies, because they are similar in nature. But I don't want the title to be too narrow. What do you think? Ocaasi t | c 11:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
A note: I know that Liam Wyatt ( User:Wittylama) wasn't paid for his stint at the British Museum, and I think there are probably others that are in a similar situation ( Lori Byrd Phillips?). The article uses phrases like "hired" that misleadingly imply that they were paid (despite not saying that directly). This is particularly relevant in Liam's case, since his British Museum job was done out of his own pocket because he was concerned about COI. Some Wikipedians-in-Residence have been paid, some have taken academic credit, et cetera. I don't want to correct the article directly—I've worked with them in person, I care about them and their roles, and thus don't want to edit with a certain COI—but the variation in paid status among Wikipedians-in-Residence is probably relevant to the article, and the current wording can definitely be improved. I'll see if I can find a decent source showing that Liam wasn't paid, but in the meantime, I'd appreciate it if someone would change the wording on good faith. Thanks, {{ Nihiltres| talk| edits| ⚡}} 14:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Wyatt, 25, the first Wikipedian in residence, is a Wikipedia administrator from Australia. His position is unpaid, but Mr. Wyatt said the mission was worth subsidizing with his personal savings.
Briefly - the article looks ok. I'd think I'd mention that the COI guideline goes back to 2004 (as "Vanity Pages") and was updated in October 2006 to be Conflict of Interest - better check details. A couple of other things I might add are mere details.
However, about WP:GLAM and paid Wikipedians-in residence. I think there have been 2 or 3, with roughly 10 others being unpaid. They are short-term internship type positions, completely transparent and overseen by non-paid Wikipedians. Their jobs basically come down to encouraging Wikipedians to take advantage of the public non-profit institution's resources and encouraging people within the institutions to help donate material (e.g. photos and artwork) to Wikipedia. I don't think any of them have directly edited their institutions main article. Only one of the names mentioned here is correct.
So in short, on paid WiRs there doesn't appear to be anything totally outrageous or malicious, but the text is wrong both in detail and in its overall emphasis. Smallbones ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Somebody put up a COI notice on this section (which I deleted), asking for help with a COI. Perhaps somebody misunderstood what i said above. I don't think I have any serious COI here, just some info that I can't cite and won't put in the article (actually this is quite common in editing, but mostly for material where I forget where I got it from ;-) ). I did some minor editing - mostly rearranging - in the GLAM section. I removed the name of one editor for which there was no cited material saying he is paid. The article didn't exactly say he was paid, but the placement or context certainly suggested it. I don't guarantee the truth of the paragraph, but there are now at least minimally reliable sources for everything there. If anybody thinks the rearranged material is worse than the original, please revert it. Smallbones ( talk) 17:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Fred was making some fairly significant cuts from the article, including the entire WikiScanner section, because it was not obviously 'paid editing'. That's a fair criticism and the better solution than removing the content is just moving the article and tweaking the introduction to make the main topic conflict of interest editing with paid editing/advocacy as a subtopic. I regret doing this without broader discussion, but frankly I'd rather see the article maintain its comprehensive coverage of incidents rather than remove several of them because of a title-related technicality. Feedback welcome. Ocaasi t | c 22:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Although Kohs' press release is not a reliable source in the general sense of the word, it is a reliable source for Kohs' actions and views. I agree with Orangemike there, but I'm willing to discuss it. Ocaasi t | c 22:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's a possible reference about paid editing and COI issues. I may be biased because the article discusses a company I have a connection to, so would rather others judge the WP:RS of this:
Una empresa ofrece artículos por encargo y asegura mantener el espíritu de objetividad de la enciclopedia (One company offers custom made items and ensures to maintain the spirit of objectivity of the encyclopedia)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |trans_title=
ignored (|trans-title=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)Thanks. Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I have received some criticism that articles I recently wrote were too closely paraphrased from reliable sources. I am tagging the page so others can review the text and we can work on improving any instances of close paraphrasing. Ocaasi t | c 14:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Some images that could be useful
I am failing to see why paid or unpaid Wikipedian-in-Residence involved in upload of images from various museums would be perceived as potential COI. Commons is a separate project which does not have any COI policy and is generally happy to take any image from anybody as long as image is in scope and proper license is provided. Mentioning that Wikipedian-in-Residence were involved in uploading images to Commons in this article suggests that that might be considered COI situation. That is misleading and should be corrected. -- Jarekt ( talk) 14:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll suggest that GLAM participants more or less leave this alone (as I should have). There is nothing accusing or inflammatory here. But the real objection is whether the section is out of place. By putting the section here it looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation (a very, very terrible name - you don't have to be paid to cooperate on Wikipedia!) are using GLAM as an example of how paid editing can work well. That context just makes mention here completely out-of-line. I'd prefer the article be moved out of article space for the time being. It's great as a history of paid editing and related topics (but not of all conflict of interest editing - a bottomless pit), that should be in user space or an essay - but it carries too much ideological baggage to be an article (for now). Smallbones ( talk) 01:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Although not implicated in any controversy, many Wikipedia editors have partnered with galleries, libraries, archives, and museums, to assist them in sharing their content on Wikipedia and its sister projects. [1] [2] Most of the Wikipedians are volunteers, but a few have worked in paid positions.
Liam Wyatt was the first Wikipedian-in-Residence, working at an unpaid position at the British Museum in 2010, [3] [4] organizing events and encouraging editing of relevant articles, but not editing them himself. citation needed In 2011 the US National Archives and Records Administration took on part-time paid Wikipedian-in-Residence Dominic McDevitt-Parks, who worked on transcribing archived documents into searchable text on Wikipedia's sister project Wikisource. [5] [6] [7] [8] McDevitt-Parks helped upload about 90,000 documents to Wikimedia Commons, the Wikimedia image repository. [9]
The British Library sought out its own paid Wikipedian-in-Residence for several months in 2012, offering an annualized salary of £30,768 for "reviewing, improving and creating content" on the encyclopedia as well as offering training sessions at the library. [10] [3]
Lori Byrd Phillips was a Wikipedian-in-Residence at the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis; [1] [11] [12] she also worked on transferring images from the museum to Wikimedia Commons. [13]
{{
cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Here are a bunch of suggestions starting from the top of the article down. Hopefully they are helpful. Cheers User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for these edits! I made almost all of the changes, all of the grammatical ones, and most of the POV-related ones. I trimmed quotes, changed scandal to controversy in some places, tweaked phrasings for accuracy. I didn't address:
Those changes might be made at a later time. But I'm happy to discuss them. Thanks again.
{{Request edit}}
Please could an editor change "admitted" to "confirmed". "Admitted" sounds like there was some secrecy or duplicity involved, which there never was.
Microsoft knew they should not edit themselves. They wanted to get the entries corrected for what they though was bias. I think my mistake was that when I wrote that they had offered to pay me to edit Wikipedia, I didn't realize the number of ill-willed people who would assume that "edit" meant violating rules and doing things in secret: when in fact what I eventually did was to limit myself to the Talk pages, which the Wikipedia editor assigned to shepherd me had told me was the correct way to handle this situation: disclosure and raising issues for community discussion and editors' decisions in the Talk pages. I think the section in the Conflict of Interest might like to point out that in fact there was no conflict of interest problem, because things were done the right way: it would be good for the page to clearly say what the right way is, for people who find themselves in controversial situations.
Finally, please note that getting the ODF entry altered was not part of the offer or deal, which was about what Wikipedia had about OOXML. Microsoft wanted better information on OOXML, not worse on ODF, since they felt that OOXML had a decent technical approach for the standards debates. Looking at my original blog entry, I can see that was not clear, and maybe that contributed to the Slashdotter's panic. This section perpetuates the misapprehension.
Rick Jelliffe ( talk) 15:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I saw the back and forth in the edit history with Selina on connected contributors. It's kind of silly because every Wikipedia editor has a close connection on articles about Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I added the close connection template to the top for those who wish to disclose. This seems like the best approach to provide visibility into COI editing without implying it has resulted in a problem in the article. The template says "personal or professional" so anyone can use the template even if their COI is not as overt as paid editing.
Cheers. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Why is there a link to a PDF presentation? Or for that matter, why does it exist? It seems most unusual and there is nothing in it that couldn't appear as a Wikipedia: or User: space page.
Also, the number of self-references in this section is disturbing. I propose we trim the fat.- RunningOnBrains( talk) 08:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel like what's missing is an "arguments" section. We have all this history, but not a single place that consolidates all majority and minority viewpoints on the issue itself. Why do people edit with a COI and why does it often end disastrously? We could have a section up top that outlines the issue itself using mostly the same sources and information. Thoughts? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Any objections to turning the giant paragraph listing the COI entities into a proper list? Having a single sentence with four dozen organizations and twenty references is a bit painful to read. 28bytes ( talk) 17:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
To do: Incorporate the below sources where appropriate into the article. It's currently out of date by 1 year.
already incorporated
|
---|
If you feel they are worth including:
Self-published with questionable notability:
See the sources in use:
I am the author of the report mentioned in the articles. User:Corporate Minion 22:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC) CIPRI just updated the CIPR article with the following news articles that would be useful here.
They have published ethical guidelines for PR professionals on Wikipedia. The primary theme is not to directly edit articles. User:Corporate Minion 15:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
|
DoneProbably the most comprehensive coverage of the PR/Wikipedia relationship to date
by IABC came out today.
Corporate Minion 14:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Done
Ocaasi t | c 17:17, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to do a copy edit of this article at some point, and I thought I'd note it here just in case someone wonders what I'm doing. It would include creating a tighter lead, tightening the writing in general throughout, removing any non-RS sources, and balancing the sections to that there's a proportionate amount of coverage in relation to the amount of coverage incidents received in the media, per UNDUE. Hope this is okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
In reaction to the BP situation, I've drafted a notice that I think would be helpful in informing readers of such situations. Still tweaking with the language. Input and suggestions appreciated. It is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coretheapple/sandbox Coretheapple ( talk) 19:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I realize that the Talk Page is not a forum but I'm a little confused by some of the conspiratorial tone to this page. I know students and faculty that edited their university's Wiki article, members of professional or charitable organizations who edit theirs, employees that tinker with their company's profile page, people working on a film who update production information, fans of a sports team working on that team's page. It's prevalent because often these are the people who care enough to spend the time working on the article. I'm not denying that there could be a conflict of interest, just that it happens, and I think it happens a lot.
The primary failing of those individuals mentioned in this article is that they worked on a computer that could be traced back to their offices. If they had made edits at some wireless cafe, there would be no scandal.
My point? I think that this kind of behavior happens on Wikipedia all of the time but it makes the news when it's a public official, a big PR firm or large corporation. While it needs to be stated in a nuanced way, I think these few examples are just those who "got caught" and don't deserve to be demonized in a way that makes it look like these companies/people are the only ones who ever edited an article on an organization they worked for, participated in or studied at or promoted.
For example, if you looked at articles of individuals and organizations in the entertainment world, you'd find a lot of self-edited profiles. That's not saying it's okay, just that it's common. If I tagged every acting/music profile I see that lacks a NPOV, I'd be busy for days. Newjerseyliz ( talk) 13:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
(From the UP, the Florida Atlantic University (Press) Student Magazine w/link below)
User:Ocaasi, how about copying and pasting this at Talk:Wiki-PR, since that article might be kept as a stand-alone? Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The article on Wiki-PR is unlikely to show a notable corporation. INstead, the article focusses on the controversy about paid PR editing on Wikipedia. It seems to me that conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia is a far better location for that information, properly cited, than an article on Wiki-PR which resembles a WP:COATRACK rather than an article on a pretty non notable PR company. Fiddle Faddle 11:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I am a frequent COI contributor and was just gleaming through this article. I noticed it contains a "Reception" section, which is the title we normally use for balanced reviews published by credible, independent academics and media. However, this section is actually used mostly to communicate the PR community's point-of-view. I would suggest it be renamed to something more representative of its contents. CorporateM ( Talk) 15:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted User:Biosthmors rewrite of the lead. "Controversy" is an excellent term to describe what's happening here, not simply "events" and WP:NOT is a WP *policy* which prohibits advocacy, not simply a guideline. Smallbones( smalltalk) 12:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)