Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement page. |
|
This project page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd love to hear your feedback on the article. A reminder to keep editing within our WP:COI guidelines and to remain neutral while providing good, independent, reliable sources. If any editors with a conflict of interest in this area would like to make changes, I'd be happy to review them. Or, perhaps we should have a conversation about whether editing this article directly is appropriate. One final reminder, this talk page is not a general discussion page for the topic of paid editing. There are other places for that such as WP:WikiProject Cooperation's Talk page. Please keep it civil; we share a common goal I believe, even if reaching it will require some back and forth. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
How exactly does this come anywhere near meeting WP:GNG? The only independent source providing significant coverage is the Forbes article, but that isn't sufficient for a stand alone article. It seems more sensible to me, to create a paid editing of wikipedia article (or something like that) instead. That would also allow us to remove some of the undue content in Bell Pottinger and Portland Communications. SmartSE ( talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
{{Request edit}}
Glad this is up here.
One nit. I only built the CREWE page and gave it its nifty, pun-compatible acronym. Credit for the idea to make a public space on Facebook goes to John Cass, director of marketing, NewLogic, Inc. -- 12.176.230.9 ( talk) 17:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The phrasing of that piece makes me want to step outside of this group. "One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on Fortune 100 companies. Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles." It sounds hugely self serving and probably explains why people view PRs as a bunch of paymaster's puppets, which is exactly why a source like Wikipedia is so needed and so valuable. I've always believed that the first principle of PR is working out what motivates the people you want to influence and find the thing that lets everyone win. By trying to 'win' without giving anything away, I don't think you/we have a cat in Hell's chance of doing anything other than getting Wikipedia to dig in its heels
Mistress does have a legitimate complaint about the neutrality of the article. Primarily being that the obvious Criticism or Controversy section that articulates the counter-points from participants in the Paid Advocacy Watch is inaccessible due to the lack of media coverage. This is particularly painful since most of the citations were written by or (presumably) facilitated by CREWE, creating a markedly pro-CREWE article based on the media's depiction.
A few ideas (just ideas):
Just some thoughts.
King4057 ( talk) 04:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad the conversation has turned back to editing the actual article. In the future, all editors should avoid getting into a debate over the politics of CREWE; that's simply not what this page is for. Ocaasi t | c 06:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the suggested (see diffs here). This version has both a Justification and a Criticism section. I also shortened quotes on both sides of the debate. I believe this is more balanced as it presents more than one side. King4057 ( talk) 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
draft
|
---|
'''Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE)''' is a [[Facebook]] group created by [[public relations]] professionals who want to foster greater involvement by PR professionals on [[Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]]<ref>{{cite news |title=Wiki wars |author=Kaya Strehler |url=http://www.creammagazine.com/2012/02/the-wikiwar-is-on/ |newspaper=Cream Magazine |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> have also joined the group.<ref name=TechRepublic/> CREWE was started by Phil Gomes,<ref name="Forbes">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia & the PR Pro: Friend or Foe? |author=Peter Himler |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/01/10/wikipedia-the-pr-pro-friend-or-foe/ |newspaper=[[Forbes]] |date=January 10, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> senior vice-president<ref name="PRweek">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia: Friend or foe? |author=Kate Magee |url=http://www.prweek.com/uk/features/login/1114954/ |newspaper=[[PRWeek]] |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> at [[Edelman (firm)|Edelman Digital]], in January, 2012 after John Cass of NewLogic Inc.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newlogicusa.com/news/ |title=News | Newlogic, Inc |publisher=Newlogicusa.com |date= |accessdate=2012-02-17}}</ref> recommended the idea to him.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1aRDKadJZg&feature=player_embedded |title=FIR Video Interview with Stuart Bruce and Phil Gomes on PR and Wikipedia |author=''ForImmediateRelease.biz'' |date=January 13, 2012 |work= |publisher=[[Youtube]] |accessdate=February 11, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Wikiwars? PR pros seek editing rights from Wikipedia |author=Jeremy Woolf |url=http://www.campaignasia.com/Article/288532,opinion-wikiwars-pr-pros-seek-editing-rights-from-wikipedia.aspx |newspaper=Campaign Asia-Pacific |date=January 30, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}{{subscription needed}}</ref><ref name="techdirt">{{cite news |title=Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia |author=Gerald F. Corbett |url=http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?d=2&m=2&y=2012 |newspaper=[[Techdirt]] |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> ====Justification==== In a January 4th open letter to Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]], Phil Gomes of Edelman posted on his blog,<ref name="gomesblog">{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> "A truly serious conversation needs to happen about how communications professionals and the Wikipedia community can/must work together. Since recent events have thrown this issue into sharp relief, I’d like us to have an open, constructive and fair discussion about the important issues where public relations and Wikipedia intersect.”<ref name=Forbes/> Gomes explained that Wikipedia's prominence as a top search result adds a level of responsibility to be accurate.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He suggested that many articles have inaccuracies or are outdated, and existing channels for addressing these issues--such as leaving a message on the article's "Talk" page--do not receive timely responses.<ref name=techdirtpr/> Gomes further argued that allowing PR representatives to fix minor errors, such as spelling, grammar and facts, leaves too much ambiguity about what are acceptable changes to make.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He made the comparison between PR editors and activists, challenging that activists seem to enjoy "much more latitude".<ref name=techdirtpr/> Gomes argued that in certain situations, like when an article is derelect, direct editing of articles was called for.<ref name=techdirtpr/> CREWE has attracted the support of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), who made the following statement: <blockquote>"It is an initiative we hope will be taken up by many and used as a catalyst for an open and honest discussion with Wikipedia and its editors regarding the role and value of allowing corporate communications and PR professionals to responsibly and transparently make necessary edits to their employers’ and clients’ Wikipedia entries."<ref name=Forbes/></blockquote> ====Organization==== As of January 25, CREWE was reported to have over 150 participants,<ref name="Odwyer">{{cite news |title=Tortuous Wikipedia Rules Require Expert |author=Jack O'Dwyer |url=http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3911-Tortuous-Wikipedia-Rules-Require-Expert.html |newspaper=[[O'Dwyer's]] |date=January 25, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> including [[J. R. O'Dwyer Company|Jack O’Dwyer]], Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson, Marcia W. DiStaso,<ref>{{cite news |title=Should Public Relations Professionals be Allowed to Edit Wikipedia Articles? |author=Marcia W. DiStaso |url=http://www.instituteforpr.org/2012/02/should-public-relations-professionals-be-allowed-to-edit-wikipedia-articles/ |newspaper=Institute for Public Relations |date=February 13, 2012 |accessdate=February 17, 2012}}</ref> and industry trade association the [[Public Relations Society of America|Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)]].<ref name=Forbes/> According to [[Gerard F. Corbett]], CEO of PRSA, CREWE is based on four principles:<ref name=techdirt/> *Corporate communicators want to do the right thing. *Communicators engaged in ethical practice have a lot to contribute. *Current Wikipedia policy does not fully understand Nos. 1 and 2, owing to the activities of some bad actors and a general misunderstanding of public relations in general. *Accurate Wikipedia entries are in the public interest. CREWE maintains a group on [[Facebook]]<ref name="Facebook">{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ |title=Aanmelden |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> including a page where people can report issues they have with the Wikipedia.<ref name="TechRepublic">{{cite news |title=Four Social Media IT rules to live by |author=Gina Smith |url=http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/tech-manager/four-social-media-it-rules-to-live-by/7275 |newspaper=[[TechRepublic]] |date=February 7, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> It also details Wikipedia's [[conflict of interest]] guidelines, best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, and controversial issues.<ref name=TechRepublic/> One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on [[Fortune 100]] companies.<ref name=Odwyer/> Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/doc/165384016900187/ |title=Aanmelden |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles;<ref name="Lovell">{{cite web|url=http://lovell.com/public-relations/pr-pros-push-wikipedia-editing-rights/ |title=PR Pros Push For Wikipedia Editing Rights|publisher=[[Lovell Communications]] |date=January 19, 2012|author=Erin Lawley |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> note that Wikipedia generally [[WP:PAY|strongly discourages]] paid editing of articles (as opposed to article talk pages) Among the organization's goals are to get Jimmy Wales to change his opinion about paid editors directly editing articles as well as making Wikipedia a more welcoming place for PR workers.<ref name="socialfresh">{{cite web|url=http://socialfresh.com/jimmy-wales-and-public-relations-face-off/ |title=Jimmy Wales and Public Relations Face Off |author=David King |publisher=Socialfresh.com |date=January 16, 2012|accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> Around the same time CREWE was created, a separate Wikipedia group called ''WikiProject Cooperation''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation |title=Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |publisher=En.wikipedia.org |date= |accessdate=2012-02-12}}</ref> was started to provide education, oversight, assistance, and collaboration to paid editors.<ref name=socialfresh/> ====Receptiom==== After the group started, conversation on [[Twitter]] and elsewhere ensued between group members and Jimmy Wales.<ref name=Forbes/><ref name=socialfresh/> In a response on Gomes' blog, Wales maintained PR representatives should cooperate with the community and abide by its policies, but still not edit articles directly.<ref name="techdirtpr">{{cite web|url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/02160317359/should-pr-people-be-able-to-edit-otherwise-ignored-wikipedia-pages-their-clients-to-correct-errors.shtml |title=Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored Wikipedia Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors? |publisher=[[Techdirt]] |date=2012-01-10 |accessdate=2012-02-11}}</ref> Wales wrote: <blockquote>...no one in the PR industry has ever put forward a cogent argument (and seldom bother putting forward an argument at all) why it is important that they take the potentially (especially if I have anything to do with it) reputation damaging step of directly editing entries where they are acting as paid advocates. The simple and obvious answer is to do what works, without risking the reputation of the client: talk to the community, respect their autonomy, and never ever directly edit an article. There are many avenues for you to make simple factual corrections, and these avenues actually do work...What I have found - and the evidence for this is pretty comprehensive - is that people who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html?cid=6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c#comment-6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref></blockquote> David King, a marketing professional that specializes in Wikipedia, implied CREWE members were lobbying for broader editing privileges on Wikipedia that they haven't earned.<ref name="PRSquared">By David King, PR-Squared. "[http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2012/02/wikipedia-for-marketers-the-last-word Wikipedia for Marketers: The Last Word]." February 13, 2012. Retrieved February 18, 2012.</ref> He suggested that PR people will need to be humble and learn Wikipedia's rules.<ref name="socialfresh"/> David also portrays the group as resting blame on Jimmy Wales, when the public relations field will "have to pay the admission fee [to Wikipedia] in sweat, experience and good manners."<ref name="socialfresh"/> See alsoReferences{{reflist}} Further reading
External links |
Nice work, I think this will help us get closer. I haven't commented on everything, but I'm looking closely at the rest. Ocaasi t | c 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe the template recently added is not designed to 'warn readers' but to alert editors so they can check the article. In that spirit, is there anything in the actual article which is not neutral or otherwise breaching policy? Please discuss. Ocaasi t | c 08:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Copying from what I said in the AfD. It has been featured in a number of news reports and specific industry publications, including Forbes, PR Week, Techdirt, Campaign Asia-Pacific and Techdirt 2 as the news articles. The industry specific sources include O'Dwyer's and New Zealand Management. There are also a number of other sources that fall in a range in between a news source and an industry specific source, including a number of official discussions by companies. Thus, notability is quite evident. Silver seren C 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I have two concerns with this survey. The first is the issue of the accuracies of the findings - the survey contains contradictory claims, in that it presents a set of data, which effectively states that "60% of respondents who are aware of Wikipedia articles about themselves or their current clients found that at least one article contained errors", and a conclusion that doesn't follow from that data, "60% of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors". The author incorrectly conflates the percentage of respondents with the percentage of articles. Accordingly, I think this should be treated as questionable.
The other issue, though, is whether or not this is appropriate for an article about CREWE, in that the survey isnt about CREWE, but about Wikipedia and PR professionals. Thus it's inclusion reads more like supporting CREWE's agenda, rather than discussing the subject of the article. - Bilby ( talk) 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I should add that there is no "brightline rule" as the source and the article states. Including that claim here seems to be misleading. - Bilby ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bilby and then some - the article's conclusions are completely bogus - which can be easily seen just by reading the paper and adding up the numbers. Also it was written with "the members of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) ... fine tuning the questionnaire, spreading the word to encourage participation and working to improve the problems with public relations/communications Wikipedia editing."(p. 21) In other words, the sample selection was seriously biased, as is the author. For another example of biasing the sample and the author's bald-faced bias see [1] where she states her opinions and then solicits participation in the survey. Example of opinion stated in the solicitation:
Given our findings [in a previous article] and the wide use of Wikipedia by the public, having articles with incorrect or outdated information is not in anyone’s interest, but edits made by public relations professionals are unlikely to stick. Gerry Corbett, chair and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America, along with many others have suggested that Wikipedia policies should be based on accuracy and transparency in Wikipedia articles; no matter who does the editing, as long as the information is accurate, unbiased and properly referenced.
These are essentially the same conclusions she comes up with in the resulting survey - but frankly, her numbers just don't add up. Smallbones ( talk) 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, given major problems in the paper's methodology, we can't say that it is reliable. I'd like to read the 2nd paper (the final reference above) which is new and entirely new to me. It might not have any statistics in it - which is likely to improve her credibility. Smallbones ( talk) 02:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The February to March 2012 survey conducted with 1284 responses from public relations/communications professionals found that 60 percent of the Wikipedia articles for companies and clients of respondents who were familiar with them had factual errors (see DiStaso, 2012). This is a very large percentage when considering that essentially six out of ten corporate articles have factual errors. (p.4)
At least you can say that she believes her own mistakes. Smallbones ( talk) 03:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
First, the question of article accuracy was not among the research questions DiStaso set out to investigate. The closest research question was "RQ2: What is the Wikipedia editing experience of public relations/communications professionals?" This is important - if you are going to investigate accuracy, you need to have a plan on how best to do this. It would probably involve more than a single question. Some of my difficulties understanding the results may simply be caused a poorly worded question.
{"wikitable" style="font-size:98%; text-align:center;" align="left"
|+ Data summarized from DiStaso paper
"Are there currently factual errors in your company or client’s Wikipedia articles?"
x=excluded from calculations
|- bgcolor="background:#eee;"
! Group/answer !! N !!% !! 2nd % || 3rd %
|-
| Yes || align="left"| 406 || align="right"|32% || 60% || 41%
|-
|Don't know || align="left"| 310 || align="right"|25% || x || 31%
|-
|No || align="left"| 273 || align="right"|22% || 40% ||28%
|-
| No article || align="left"| 271 || align="right"|22% || x || x
|-
|denominator|| align="left"| - || align="right"|1260 || 679 || 989
|}
The exact wording of the single question is not given, but appears to be "Are there currently factual errors in your company or client’s Wikipedia articles?" (perhaps without the final "s"). The order of the possible responses, "Yes," "Don't know," "No," and "No article," is the order that DiStaso used to summarize the data, but it seems unlikely that this order was used in the survey.
The meaning of the "Don't know" response is crucial. DiStaso interpreted it to mean that the respondent was "unfamiliar with the article" and therefore excluded this answer from her calculations (Column "2nd %"). It is highly unlikely that a PR professional, who knows that his company or client has an article on Wikipedia, and who has taken the time to fill out this survey would be unfamiliar with the article. Therefore I include this answer in my calculations ("3rd %). Some PR folks apparently know for sure that there is an error in the relevant article, some know that there isn't and some just can't decide. Only 41% of the total can identify an error, not 60%. Of course, "don't know" might mean that they don't know if their company or client has a Wikipedia article. This also seems highly unlikely, if only because the survey was taken online. By opening another tab in their browsers and googling the company, they could find out in 10 seconds or less if there was a Wikipedia article. "Wikipedia articles" (with the "s") might also cause confusion. Perhaps a respondent works for an agency with 10 clients which have Wikipedia articles, and just couldn't decide which one to choose. In that case however, the entire interpretation of the results must change. A yes answer might mean that 1 in 10 articles had an error, rather than the single article the respondent examined had an error. All in all, the results of this survey question are impossible to interpret, but the least likely interpretation is that 60% of Wikipedia articles have errors. Probably the most likely interpretation is "41% of PR professionals whose company or client has an article (or articles) on Wikipedia believe that they found an error in it (or them)."
Please tell me if you can make better sense of this question. Smallbones ( talk) 05:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by these tags. The description in the article reflects the sources. CREWE was started by public relations professionals, some of whom are named in the article. Others are not. Would we be expected to list almost 300 people? The same applies to which Wikipedia editors are in the group. Aside from doing original research and linking members ourselves, we did what the source did and simply summarized that "some Wikipedia editors" are in the group, including Jimmy Wales. In all I don't think those tags are appropriate. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Ocaasi t | c 22:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In light of Wales's quotes in today's edition of the Wikipedia Signpost, I think the article's mention of him as having joined CREWE should be either removed or edited to reflect his most recent stated position, which is as follows: "I am not a member of CREWE." Until this point has been resolved, I have added a "disputed" tag to the header on the page, to reflect the inconsistency. Thoughts? - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 16:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI - a fresh source [2] User:King4057 00:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement page. |
|
This project page was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'd love to hear your feedback on the article. A reminder to keep editing within our WP:COI guidelines and to remain neutral while providing good, independent, reliable sources. If any editors with a conflict of interest in this area would like to make changes, I'd be happy to review them. Or, perhaps we should have a conversation about whether editing this article directly is appropriate. One final reminder, this talk page is not a general discussion page for the topic of paid editing. There are other places for that such as WP:WikiProject Cooperation's Talk page. Please keep it civil; we share a common goal I believe, even if reaching it will require some back and forth. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
How exactly does this come anywhere near meeting WP:GNG? The only independent source providing significant coverage is the Forbes article, but that isn't sufficient for a stand alone article. It seems more sensible to me, to create a paid editing of wikipedia article (or something like that) instead. That would also allow us to remove some of the undue content in Bell Pottinger and Portland Communications. SmartSE ( talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
{{Request edit}}
Glad this is up here.
One nit. I only built the CREWE page and gave it its nifty, pun-compatible acronym. Credit for the idea to make a public space on Facebook goes to John Cass, director of marketing, NewLogic, Inc. -- 12.176.230.9 ( talk) 17:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
The phrasing of that piece makes me want to step outside of this group. "One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on Fortune 100 companies. Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles." It sounds hugely self serving and probably explains why people view PRs as a bunch of paymaster's puppets, which is exactly why a source like Wikipedia is so needed and so valuable. I've always believed that the first principle of PR is working out what motivates the people you want to influence and find the thing that lets everyone win. By trying to 'win' without giving anything away, I don't think you/we have a cat in Hell's chance of doing anything other than getting Wikipedia to dig in its heels
Mistress does have a legitimate complaint about the neutrality of the article. Primarily being that the obvious Criticism or Controversy section that articulates the counter-points from participants in the Paid Advocacy Watch is inaccessible due to the lack of media coverage. This is particularly painful since most of the citations were written by or (presumably) facilitated by CREWE, creating a markedly pro-CREWE article based on the media's depiction.
A few ideas (just ideas):
Just some thoughts.
King4057 ( talk) 04:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad the conversation has turned back to editing the actual article. In the future, all editors should avoid getting into a debate over the politics of CREWE; that's simply not what this page is for. Ocaasi t | c 06:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the suggested (see diffs here). This version has both a Justification and a Criticism section. I also shortened quotes on both sides of the debate. I believe this is more balanced as it presents more than one side. King4057 ( talk) 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
draft
|
---|
'''Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE)''' is a [[Facebook]] group created by [[public relations]] professionals who want to foster greater involvement by PR professionals on [[Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]]<ref>{{cite news |title=Wiki wars |author=Kaya Strehler |url=http://www.creammagazine.com/2012/02/the-wikiwar-is-on/ |newspaper=Cream Magazine |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> have also joined the group.<ref name=TechRepublic/> CREWE was started by Phil Gomes,<ref name="Forbes">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia & the PR Pro: Friend or Foe? |author=Peter Himler |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/01/10/wikipedia-the-pr-pro-friend-or-foe/ |newspaper=[[Forbes]] |date=January 10, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> senior vice-president<ref name="PRweek">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia: Friend or foe? |author=Kate Magee |url=http://www.prweek.com/uk/features/login/1114954/ |newspaper=[[PRWeek]] |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> at [[Edelman (firm)|Edelman Digital]], in January, 2012 after John Cass of NewLogic Inc.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newlogicusa.com/news/ |title=News | Newlogic, Inc |publisher=Newlogicusa.com |date= |accessdate=2012-02-17}}</ref> recommended the idea to him.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1aRDKadJZg&feature=player_embedded |title=FIR Video Interview with Stuart Bruce and Phil Gomes on PR and Wikipedia |author=''ForImmediateRelease.biz'' |date=January 13, 2012 |work= |publisher=[[Youtube]] |accessdate=February 11, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Wikiwars? PR pros seek editing rights from Wikipedia |author=Jeremy Woolf |url=http://www.campaignasia.com/Article/288532,opinion-wikiwars-pr-pros-seek-editing-rights-from-wikipedia.aspx |newspaper=Campaign Asia-Pacific |date=January 30, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}{{subscription needed}}</ref><ref name="techdirt">{{cite news |title=Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia |author=Gerald F. Corbett |url=http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?d=2&m=2&y=2012 |newspaper=[[Techdirt]] |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> ====Justification==== In a January 4th open letter to Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]], Phil Gomes of Edelman posted on his blog,<ref name="gomesblog">{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> "A truly serious conversation needs to happen about how communications professionals and the Wikipedia community can/must work together. Since recent events have thrown this issue into sharp relief, I’d like us to have an open, constructive and fair discussion about the important issues where public relations and Wikipedia intersect.”<ref name=Forbes/> Gomes explained that Wikipedia's prominence as a top search result adds a level of responsibility to be accurate.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He suggested that many articles have inaccuracies or are outdated, and existing channels for addressing these issues--such as leaving a message on the article's "Talk" page--do not receive timely responses.<ref name=techdirtpr/> Gomes further argued that allowing PR representatives to fix minor errors, such as spelling, grammar and facts, leaves too much ambiguity about what are acceptable changes to make.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He made the comparison between PR editors and activists, challenging that activists seem to enjoy "much more latitude".<ref name=techdirtpr/> Gomes argued that in certain situations, like when an article is derelect, direct editing of articles was called for.<ref name=techdirtpr/> CREWE has attracted the support of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), who made the following statement: <blockquote>"It is an initiative we hope will be taken up by many and used as a catalyst for an open and honest discussion with Wikipedia and its editors regarding the role and value of allowing corporate communications and PR professionals to responsibly and transparently make necessary edits to their employers’ and clients’ Wikipedia entries."<ref name=Forbes/></blockquote> ====Organization==== As of January 25, CREWE was reported to have over 150 participants,<ref name="Odwyer">{{cite news |title=Tortuous Wikipedia Rules Require Expert |author=Jack O'Dwyer |url=http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3911-Tortuous-Wikipedia-Rules-Require-Expert.html |newspaper=[[O'Dwyer's]] |date=January 25, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> including [[J. R. O'Dwyer Company|Jack O’Dwyer]], Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson, Marcia W. DiStaso,<ref>{{cite news |title=Should Public Relations Professionals be Allowed to Edit Wikipedia Articles? |author=Marcia W. DiStaso |url=http://www.instituteforpr.org/2012/02/should-public-relations-professionals-be-allowed-to-edit-wikipedia-articles/ |newspaper=Institute for Public Relations |date=February 13, 2012 |accessdate=February 17, 2012}}</ref> and industry trade association the [[Public Relations Society of America|Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)]].<ref name=Forbes/> According to [[Gerard F. Corbett]], CEO of PRSA, CREWE is based on four principles:<ref name=techdirt/> *Corporate communicators want to do the right thing. *Communicators engaged in ethical practice have a lot to contribute. *Current Wikipedia policy does not fully understand Nos. 1 and 2, owing to the activities of some bad actors and a general misunderstanding of public relations in general. *Accurate Wikipedia entries are in the public interest. CREWE maintains a group on [[Facebook]]<ref name="Facebook">{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ |title=Aanmelden |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> including a page where people can report issues they have with the Wikipedia.<ref name="TechRepublic">{{cite news |title=Four Social Media IT rules to live by |author=Gina Smith |url=http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/tech-manager/four-social-media-it-rules-to-live-by/7275 |newspaper=[[TechRepublic]] |date=February 7, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> It also details Wikipedia's [[conflict of interest]] guidelines, best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, and controversial issues.<ref name=TechRepublic/> One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on [[Fortune 100]] companies.<ref name=Odwyer/> Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/doc/165384016900187/ |title=Aanmelden |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles;<ref name="Lovell">{{cite web|url=http://lovell.com/public-relations/pr-pros-push-wikipedia-editing-rights/ |title=PR Pros Push For Wikipedia Editing Rights|publisher=[[Lovell Communications]] |date=January 19, 2012|author=Erin Lawley |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> note that Wikipedia generally [[WP:PAY|strongly discourages]] paid editing of articles (as opposed to article talk pages) Among the organization's goals are to get Jimmy Wales to change his opinion about paid editors directly editing articles as well as making Wikipedia a more welcoming place for PR workers.<ref name="socialfresh">{{cite web|url=http://socialfresh.com/jimmy-wales-and-public-relations-face-off/ |title=Jimmy Wales and Public Relations Face Off |author=David King |publisher=Socialfresh.com |date=January 16, 2012|accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> Around the same time CREWE was created, a separate Wikipedia group called ''WikiProject Cooperation''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation |title=Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |publisher=En.wikipedia.org |date= |accessdate=2012-02-12}}</ref> was started to provide education, oversight, assistance, and collaboration to paid editors.<ref name=socialfresh/> ====Receptiom==== After the group started, conversation on [[Twitter]] and elsewhere ensued between group members and Jimmy Wales.<ref name=Forbes/><ref name=socialfresh/> In a response on Gomes' blog, Wales maintained PR representatives should cooperate with the community and abide by its policies, but still not edit articles directly.<ref name="techdirtpr">{{cite web|url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/02160317359/should-pr-people-be-able-to-edit-otherwise-ignored-wikipedia-pages-their-clients-to-correct-errors.shtml |title=Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored Wikipedia Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors? |publisher=[[Techdirt]] |date=2012-01-10 |accessdate=2012-02-11}}</ref> Wales wrote: <blockquote>...no one in the PR industry has ever put forward a cogent argument (and seldom bother putting forward an argument at all) why it is important that they take the potentially (especially if I have anything to do with it) reputation damaging step of directly editing entries where they are acting as paid advocates. The simple and obvious answer is to do what works, without risking the reputation of the client: talk to the community, respect their autonomy, and never ever directly edit an article. There are many avenues for you to make simple factual corrections, and these avenues actually do work...What I have found - and the evidence for this is pretty comprehensive - is that people who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html?cid=6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c#comment-6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref></blockquote> David King, a marketing professional that specializes in Wikipedia, implied CREWE members were lobbying for broader editing privileges on Wikipedia that they haven't earned.<ref name="PRSquared">By David King, PR-Squared. "[http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2012/02/wikipedia-for-marketers-the-last-word Wikipedia for Marketers: The Last Word]." February 13, 2012. Retrieved February 18, 2012.</ref> He suggested that PR people will need to be humble and learn Wikipedia's rules.<ref name="socialfresh"/> David also portrays the group as resting blame on Jimmy Wales, when the public relations field will "have to pay the admission fee [to Wikipedia] in sweat, experience and good manners."<ref name="socialfresh"/> See alsoReferences{{reflist}} Further reading
External links |
Nice work, I think this will help us get closer. I haven't commented on everything, but I'm looking closely at the rest. Ocaasi t | c 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe the template recently added is not designed to 'warn readers' but to alert editors so they can check the article. In that spirit, is there anything in the actual article which is not neutral or otherwise breaching policy? Please discuss. Ocaasi t | c 08:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Copying from what I said in the AfD. It has been featured in a number of news reports and specific industry publications, including Forbes, PR Week, Techdirt, Campaign Asia-Pacific and Techdirt 2 as the news articles. The industry specific sources include O'Dwyer's and New Zealand Management. There are also a number of other sources that fall in a range in between a news source and an industry specific source, including a number of official discussions by companies. Thus, notability is quite evident. Silver seren C 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I have two concerns with this survey. The first is the issue of the accuracies of the findings - the survey contains contradictory claims, in that it presents a set of data, which effectively states that "60% of respondents who are aware of Wikipedia articles about themselves or their current clients found that at least one article contained errors", and a conclusion that doesn't follow from that data, "60% of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors". The author incorrectly conflates the percentage of respondents with the percentage of articles. Accordingly, I think this should be treated as questionable.
The other issue, though, is whether or not this is appropriate for an article about CREWE, in that the survey isnt about CREWE, but about Wikipedia and PR professionals. Thus it's inclusion reads more like supporting CREWE's agenda, rather than discussing the subject of the article. - Bilby ( talk) 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I should add that there is no "brightline rule" as the source and the article states. Including that claim here seems to be misleading. - Bilby ( talk) 23:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Bilby and then some - the article's conclusions are completely bogus - which can be easily seen just by reading the paper and adding up the numbers. Also it was written with "the members of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) ... fine tuning the questionnaire, spreading the word to encourage participation and working to improve the problems with public relations/communications Wikipedia editing."(p. 21) In other words, the sample selection was seriously biased, as is the author. For another example of biasing the sample and the author's bald-faced bias see [1] where she states her opinions and then solicits participation in the survey. Example of opinion stated in the solicitation:
Given our findings [in a previous article] and the wide use of Wikipedia by the public, having articles with incorrect or outdated information is not in anyone’s interest, but edits made by public relations professionals are unlikely to stick. Gerry Corbett, chair and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America, along with many others have suggested that Wikipedia policies should be based on accuracy and transparency in Wikipedia articles; no matter who does the editing, as long as the information is accurate, unbiased and properly referenced.
These are essentially the same conclusions she comes up with in the resulting survey - but frankly, her numbers just don't add up. Smallbones ( talk) 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Certainly, given major problems in the paper's methodology, we can't say that it is reliable. I'd like to read the 2nd paper (the final reference above) which is new and entirely new to me. It might not have any statistics in it - which is likely to improve her credibility. Smallbones ( talk) 02:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
The February to March 2012 survey conducted with 1284 responses from public relations/communications professionals found that 60 percent of the Wikipedia articles for companies and clients of respondents who were familiar with them had factual errors (see DiStaso, 2012). This is a very large percentage when considering that essentially six out of ten corporate articles have factual errors. (p.4)
At least you can say that she believes her own mistakes. Smallbones ( talk) 03:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
First, the question of article accuracy was not among the research questions DiStaso set out to investigate. The closest research question was "RQ2: What is the Wikipedia editing experience of public relations/communications professionals?" This is important - if you are going to investigate accuracy, you need to have a plan on how best to do this. It would probably involve more than a single question. Some of my difficulties understanding the results may simply be caused a poorly worded question.
{"wikitable" style="font-size:98%; text-align:center;" align="left"
|+ Data summarized from DiStaso paper
"Are there currently factual errors in your company or client’s Wikipedia articles?"
x=excluded from calculations
|- bgcolor="background:#eee;"
! Group/answer !! N !!% !! 2nd % || 3rd %
|-
| Yes || align="left"| 406 || align="right"|32% || 60% || 41%
|-
|Don't know || align="left"| 310 || align="right"|25% || x || 31%
|-
|No || align="left"| 273 || align="right"|22% || 40% ||28%
|-
| No article || align="left"| 271 || align="right"|22% || x || x
|-
|denominator|| align="left"| - || align="right"|1260 || 679 || 989
|}
The exact wording of the single question is not given, but appears to be "Are there currently factual errors in your company or client’s Wikipedia articles?" (perhaps without the final "s"). The order of the possible responses, "Yes," "Don't know," "No," and "No article," is the order that DiStaso used to summarize the data, but it seems unlikely that this order was used in the survey.
The meaning of the "Don't know" response is crucial. DiStaso interpreted it to mean that the respondent was "unfamiliar with the article" and therefore excluded this answer from her calculations (Column "2nd %"). It is highly unlikely that a PR professional, who knows that his company or client has an article on Wikipedia, and who has taken the time to fill out this survey would be unfamiliar with the article. Therefore I include this answer in my calculations ("3rd %). Some PR folks apparently know for sure that there is an error in the relevant article, some know that there isn't and some just can't decide. Only 41% of the total can identify an error, not 60%. Of course, "don't know" might mean that they don't know if their company or client has a Wikipedia article. This also seems highly unlikely, if only because the survey was taken online. By opening another tab in their browsers and googling the company, they could find out in 10 seconds or less if there was a Wikipedia article. "Wikipedia articles" (with the "s") might also cause confusion. Perhaps a respondent works for an agency with 10 clients which have Wikipedia articles, and just couldn't decide which one to choose. In that case however, the entire interpretation of the results must change. A yes answer might mean that 1 in 10 articles had an error, rather than the single article the respondent examined had an error. All in all, the results of this survey question are impossible to interpret, but the least likely interpretation is that 60% of Wikipedia articles have errors. Probably the most likely interpretation is "41% of PR professionals whose company or client has an article (or articles) on Wikipedia believe that they found an error in it (or them)."
Please tell me if you can make better sense of this question. Smallbones ( talk) 05:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by these tags. The description in the article reflects the sources. CREWE was started by public relations professionals, some of whom are named in the article. Others are not. Would we be expected to list almost 300 people? The same applies to which Wikipedia editors are in the group. Aside from doing original research and linking members ourselves, we did what the source did and simply summarized that "some Wikipedia editors" are in the group, including Jimmy Wales. In all I don't think those tags are appropriate. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Ocaasi t | c 22:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
In light of Wales's quotes in today's edition of the Wikipedia Signpost, I think the article's mention of him as having joined CREWE should be either removed or edited to reflect his most recent stated position, which is as follows: "I am not a member of CREWE." Until this point has been resolved, I have added a "disputed" tag to the header on the page, to reflect the inconsistency. Thoughts? - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 16:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI - a fresh source [2] User:King4057 00:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)