More about PR firms

[Jimmy Wales]

I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR
firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very
strongly.  The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make
it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of
what they would like to do.

It is all well and good to say, well, it is ok so long as they remain
neutral, but if they really want to write neutral articles, they can do
so, on their own websites, and release the work under the FDL, and
notify Wikipedians who are totally independent.

Additionally, it is always appropriate to interact on the talk pages of
articles.  If a PR firm is not happy about how something is presented
about their client, they can identify themselves openly on the talk
page, and present well-reasoned arguments and additional information and
links.

Of course it is always going to be the case that unethical practitioners
  may get involved in inappropriate behavior, but I think this is no
argument for simply accepting it.  Rather, it is a strong argument for
asking people to do this the right way: transparently and allowing
independent editors to make the actual editing decisions.

--Jimbo
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 21/08/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR
> firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very
> strongly.  The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make
> it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of
> what they would like to do.


Would this or something like it make a decent press release?


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

On 8/21/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Would this or something like it make a decent press release?

Please no. Plastering Wikipedia with more rules isn't going to help
much. Instead trying to persuade whoever the top PR gurus are that
having PR companies is a bad idea has a slightly greater chance of
working.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sam Korn]

On 8/21/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 8/21/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Would this or something like it make a decent press release?
>
> Please no. Plastering Wikipedia with more rules isn't going to help
> much. Instead trying to persuade whoever the top PR gurus are that
> having PR companies is a bad idea has a slightly greater chance of
> working.

This isn't more rules.  It's the current rules.

--
Sam
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

On 8/21/06, Sam Korn <[hidden email]> wrote:
> This isn't more rules.  It's the current rules.
>
> --
> Sam

Perhaps but that doesn't alter the basic point that outsiders are
unlikely to read them and they are likely to burry other important
stuff needed by insiders. We already have a serious case of when it
comes to guidelines. People respond by trying to add bells and wistles
to things they think are important but that just results in other
people doing the same.

--
geni
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Erik Moeller-3]

On 8/21/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR
> firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very
> strongly.  The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make
> it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of
> what they would like to do.

I'm CCing Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch on this. Sheldon is a leading
expert on the PR industry and also hosts a wiki, sourcewatch.org, that
deals specifically with these organizations. Given his many years of
experience, I think he can give us some good advice on which
approaches will work and which ones won't.

My take on it is that if we push PR industries to far to the outside,
they will just do their work clandestinely. This will damage
Wikipedia's reputation far more if it becomes known, especially when
an article that has 200+ revisions was started and carefully groomed
by a paid propagandist.

I don't see a compelling reasons why we need to force PR people to
start articles _outside_ Wikipedia and go through some "trusted
Wikipedian". In fact, it seems to me that doing so is more likely to
lead to untraceable transactions. We must not just care about
appearances, we must also care about the facts. Having a clean track
record is better than some muddy variant of Chinese whispers.

I think a separate article creation process as described under WP:COI
might work best:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest

The user space has historically allowed POV material. It would give us
a good record of all PR groups operating within Wikipedia. Surely it
is in our interest to have such a record?
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Death Phoenix]

On 8/21/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On 8/21/06, Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR
> > firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very
> > strongly.  The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make
> > it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of
> > what they would like to do.
>
> I'm CCing Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch on this. Sheldon is a leading
> expert on the PR industry and also hosts a wiki, sourcewatch.org, that
> deals specifically with these organizations. Given his many years of
> experience, I think he can give us some good advice on which
> approaches will work and which ones won't.
>
> My take on it is that if we push PR industries to far to the outside,
> they will just do their work clandestinely. This will damage
> Wikipedia's reputation far more if it becomes known, especially when
> an article that has 200+ revisions was started and carefully groomed
> by a paid propagandist.
>
> I don't see a compelling reasons why we need to force PR people to
> start articles _outside_ Wikipedia and go through some "trusted
> Wikipedian". In fact, it seems to me that doing so is more likely to
> lead to untraceable transactions. We must not just care about
> appearances, we must also care about the facts. Having a clean track
> record is better than some muddy variant of Chinese whispers.
>
> I think a separate article creation process as described under WP:COI
> might work best:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflicts_of_interest
>
> The user space has historically allowed POV material. It would give us
> a good record of all PR groups operating within Wikipedia. Surely it
> is in our interest to have such a record?
>

Yes, that does sound like a decent idea. Instead of having, say, Gregory
post up an article on his web site then asking a trusted Wikipedian post it,
we could have Gregory working in his own userspace, for everyone to see, in
a place like [[User:MyWikiBiz/Norman Technologies]], then if he thinks it's
of sufficient quality, he can send a message to someone (or a bunch of
someones, maybe even a formal peer review) and have them edit it to
appropriate Wikipedia standards. I think that is more in line with how we
already handle articles that have been userfied.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Stephen Bain]

On 8/22/06, Death Phoenix <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Yes, that does sound like a decent idea. Instead of having, say, Gregory
> post up an article on his web site then asking a trusted Wikipedian post it,
> we could have Gregory working in his own userspace, for everyone to see, in
> a place like [[User:MyWikiBiz/Norman Technologies]], then if he thinks it's
> of sufficient quality, he can send a message to someone (or a bunch of
> someones, maybe even a formal peer review) and have them edit it to
> appropriate Wikipedia standards. I think that is more in line with how we
> already handle articles that have been userfied.

Yes, and it is much easier to attribute the text to the original
contributor if the page is moved, than if the text is published under
the GFDL elsewhere and copied across by another editor. I imagine
there would be a whole regime of templates and categories to organise
this :)

While there's something to be said for distancing people, and having
them publish work first on their own websites, there's also an
argument that bringing people into the fold, where the community can
actively engage with and monitor them, could be more successful in
achieving productive contributions in many cases.

--
Stephen Bain
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 8/21/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
[snip]
> The user space has historically allowed POV material. It would give us
> a good record of all PR groups operating within Wikipedia. Surely it
> is in our interest to have such a record?

We have enough problems with people trying to use userspace to
advertise their products and services...  A wikipedia userspace page
is one of the easiest ways you can show up high on google search
results, and as a result userpages are frequently misused by
non-contributors to create a publicly visible pulpit for themselves.

To a random google using reader, it is often not at all obvious that
they have hit a userpage or, even, what a userpage is verses Wikipedia
proper.  When the userpage *looks* like a Wikipedia article, there is
a substantial risk of confusion. A non-wikipedian can not be expected
to know that an wikipedia article with User: at the front is something
substantially different from a wikipedia article without it.

I am very worried that such usage will risk causing additional harm to
our readers and further damage to our reputation.


I, for one, am strongly opposed to any proposal which would further
support the abuse of our resources as an advertising medium.
Userpages exist to help users interact with each other inorder to
further the project. They do not exist to provide a platform for
advertisers to address the world.


That we already have users who believe that all third party edits to
userpages are vandalism to be instantly reverted only increases the
risk of this already risky proposal.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sheldon Rampton]

Thanks, Erik, for giving me a heads-up that this discussion is  
happening.

Jimmy Wales <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR
>> firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very
>> strongly.  The appearance of impropriety is so great that we  
>> should make
>> it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of
>> what they would like to do.

And Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> replied:

> My take on it is that if we push PR industries to far to the outside,
> they will just do their work clandestinely. This will damage
> Wikipedia's reputation far more if it becomes known, especially when
> an article that has 200+ revisions was started and carefully groomed
> by a paid propagandist.

I'm not sure how this discussion originated, but I think Erik has a  
point. It sounds like the proposed restriction on PR firms is a  
special case of Wikipedia's general rule against editing articles  
about oneself or one's own organization, in which PR firms are seen  
as agents editing on behalf of their clients. The issue of "editing  
articles about yourself" has always been tricky, in part because it  
exposes a paradox in Wikipedia's editorial policy:

(1) Editing articles about oneself is strongly discouraged, if not  
outright prohibited; yet

(2) Anonymous editing is allowed, which makes it difficult if not  
impossible to enforce the policy against self-editing. (In fact, the  
policy against self-editing creates an INCENTIVE to edit anonymously  
as a means of evading the restriction.)

I realize that Wikipedia's existing policies have a lot of history  
and inertia behind them, but I have long felt that the policy against  
self-editing is problematic. I think it should be revised to the  
following:

Editing an article about yourself or your client is permitted, under  
certain conditions:
-- CREATING articles about yourself or your client is not allowed,  
only editing of existing articles.
-- Self-editing is allowed if limited to adding or correcting  
noncontroversial facts. For example, if the article about me gives an  
incorrect date of birth, I should be allowed to correct it.
-- People should not self-edit when dealing with controversial or  
disputed facts or interpretations. Any such disputes should be  
addressed on the talk page and left to others to resolve, and can be  
submitted to arbitration if they are not satisfactorily resolved.
-- People who wish to edit an article about themselves or their  
client are strongly encouraged to do so transparently, by disclosing  
that they are editing an article about themselves on the article's  
talk page.

The problem with the current policy is that is is gradually expanding  
into an umbrella that excludes whole classes of people from  
participating in Wikipedia. Members of the U.S. Congress and their  
staffs were banned (although they could easily circumvent the ban by  
simply editing from their homes rather than their offices). Now we're  
talking about restricting PR firms. It's easy to come up with other  
classes of people who could also be restricted from editing on  
similar grounds. What about lobbyists? Employees of think tanks?  
Trade associations? Labor unions? Should Christian missionaries and  
clergy be told not to edit articles about Christianity?

A restriction on editing "articles about yourself or your client" is  
also a poor fit with the problem that the current policy is  
attempting to solve, because some PR firms do work that is not about  
their client but rather aimed at attacking their client's  
COMPETITORS. One example that we wrote about recently involved a PR  
firm which circulated a claim that Apple's video iPods were dangerous  
to children because they could be used to download and view  
pornography. The client in this case was Sony, which makes a rival  
MP3 player. But how would you enforce a policy that says PR firms  
working for Sony can't edit Wikipedia articles about Apple products?

Another recent example: the DCI Group, a PR firm whose clients  
include Exxon, recently got caught anonymously circulating a video on  
YouTube that mocked Al Gore's activism on global warming. Al Gore was  
not their client, and the video didn't mention Exxon at all. But does  
it make sense to have a policy that says employees of PR firms can't  
edit articles about politicians?

Preventing this sort of thing from happening on Wikipedia would  
require a policy that forbids people who work for PR firms not only  
from editing articles about their clients, but also from editing  
articles about any topics of potential interest to their clients. A  
policy of this nature would be so vague that it would be a nightmare  
to enforce -- especially since many PR firms do not disclose their  
client lists.

On the other hand, a policy that requires PR firms to be transparent  
about disclosing whenever they edit an article related to a client or  
a client's interests, coupled with the restrictions that I outlined  
above, would be reasonably enforceable. PR firms would be discouraged  
from anonymous or POV editing by the strong possibility that they  
would be identified and embarrassed for doing so.

--Sheldon Rampton
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Kelly Martin-3]

On 8/22/06, Sheldon Rampton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Preventing this sort of thing from happening on Wikipedia would
> require a policy that forbids people who work for PR firms not only
> from editing articles about their clients, but also from editing
> articles about any topics of potential interest to their clients. A
> policy of this nature would be so vague that it would be a nightmare
> to enforce -- especially since many PR firms do not disclose their
> client lists.

I'd just as soon block the PR firms entirely. Maybe once they get some
semblance of a clue, but for now virtually every edit I've seen come
from a PR firm has been crap.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 8/22/06, Kelly Martin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'd just as soon block the PR firms entirely. Maybe once they get some
> semblance of a clue, but for now virtually every edit I've seen come
> from a PR firm has been crap.

Of course... That takes us back to the "then they well just operate in
secret" argument.

I guess my counter is: We already have PR firms operating in secret.
If we can't deal with secret POV pushing PR firms who can afford to
learn the processes schmmoze our editors, then we've already lost.
If we can deal with them acting in secret, then there is no reason for
us to pretend that you are welcome.

I should bring up that when people come back in secret to edit after
we have forbidden them from editing they are committing a crime.   Are
we honestly discussing how best to accommodate criminals here?

If we are not able to instill in the hearts and minds of the public
that vandalizing Wikipedia is no more savory than spray painting the
side of your local library, or using Wikipedia to advertise is no more
acceptable than sticking ads in the libraries books  then we will
continue to find ourselves the victims of the worst aspects of human
nature.

I believe our experience has shown that people today do behave
respectfully with Wikipedia. Average folks are no more likely to
vandalize wikipedia then they are likely to key a strangers car.  But
that respect starts with us respecting ourselves... few people would
feel too bad about peeing on a heap of garbage.

So we must always take a public stand to protect Wikipedias integrity
even when we know our measures are ineffective against a real bad-guy.
 Saying NO to the misuse of Wikipedia as a tool to distribute
advertising and other biased information is an important part of that
stand.


Like many things our rules in this regard should represent a constant
effort to work towards a goal.  Just as all the Wikipedias contain
copyright violations although we forbid them, all will contain some
advertising.   Our current inability to achieve perfection is no
excuse to discontinue fighting the good fight.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Erik Moeller-3]

On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> We have enough problems with people trying to use userspace to
> advertise their products and services...  A wikipedia userspace page
> is one of the easiest ways you can show up high on google search
> results, and as a result userpages are frequently misused by
> non-contributors to create a publicly visible pulpit for themselves.

Simple answer: add a clear disclaimer template at the top of WP:COI
articles, and delete them if they are rejected by the community. This
is much easier if there's a standard process (there's that evil word
again) to follow.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Kat Walsh]

On 8/22/06, Sheldon Rampton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I realize that Wikipedia's existing policies have a lot of history
> and inertia behind them, but I have long felt that the policy against
> self-editing is problematic. I think it should be revised to the
> following:
>
> Editing an article about yourself or your client is permitted, under
> certain conditions:
> -- CREATING articles about yourself or your client is not allowed,
> only editing of existing articles.
> -- Self-editing is allowed if limited to adding or correcting
> noncontroversial facts. For example, if the article about me gives an
> incorrect date of birth, I should be allowed to correct it.
> -- People should not self-edit when dealing with controversial or
> disputed facts or interpretations. Any such disputes should be
> addressed on the talk page and left to others to resolve, and can be
> submitted to arbitration if they are not satisfactorily resolved.
> -- People who wish to edit an article about themselves or their
> client are strongly encouraged to do so transparently, by disclosing
> that they are editing an article about themselves on the article's
> talk page.

This is already largely the case. The autobiography guidelines don't
forbid all editing related to one's self or related persons/activities
and in fact explicitly mention the kind of uncontroversial editing you
bring up as acceptable.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography>

> The problem with the current policy is that is is gradually expanding
> into an umbrella that excludes whole classes of people from
> participating in Wikipedia. Members of the U.S. Congress and their
> staffs were banned (although they could easily circumvent the ban by
> simply editing from their homes rather than their offices). Now we're
> talking about restricting PR firms. It's easy to come up with other
> classes of people who could also be restricted from editing on
> similar grounds. What about lobbyists? Employees of think tanks?
> Trade associations? Labor unions? Should Christian missionaries and
> clergy be told not to edit articles about Christianity?

I'd say it depends. Any editor who can write neutrally -- so that no
one can tell which point of view they hold, so that they don't seem to
be pushing any particular POV, so that they are receptive to criticism
and feedback -- I don't have a problem with. When they become obvious
or disruptive in their attempts to impose their views, and through
that it becomes clear they have a conflict of interest, that is a
problem; perhaps we should be quicker to restrict those with obvious
potential conflicts of any sort from editing where their editing has
been problematic.

> A restriction on editing "articles about yourself or your client" is
> also a poor fit with the problem that the current policy is
> attempting to solve, because some PR firms do work that is not about
> their client but rather aimed at attacking their client's
> COMPETITORS. One example that we wrote about recently involved a PR
> firm which circulated a claim that Apple's video iPods were dangerous
> to children because they could be used to download and view
> pornography. The client in this case was Sony, which makes a rival
> MP3 player. But how would you enforce a policy that says PR firms
> working for Sony can't edit Wikipedia articles about Apple products?

The same way we enforce policy saying that PR firms working for Sony
can't edit articles about Sony; the same way we enforce the general
policy stating that if your sole purpose is to push a certain point of
view that you will be disinvited from the project. (Which is to say --
unevenly, spottily, sometimes through long and painful processes, on a
case-by-case basis, but once it is spotted it is usually looked upon
disfavorably and the editors involved restricted or banned.)

> Another recent example: the DCI Group, a PR firm whose clients
> include Exxon, recently got caught anonymously circulating a video on
> YouTube that mocked Al Gore's activism on global warming. Al Gore was
> not their client, and the video didn't mention Exxon at all. But does
> it make sense to have a policy that says employees of PR firms can't
> edit articles about politicians?
>
> Preventing this sort of thing from happening on Wikipedia would
> require a policy that forbids people who work for PR firms not only
> from editing articles about their clients, but also from editing
> articles about any topics of potential interest to their clients. A
> policy of this nature would be so vague that it would be a nightmare
> to enforce -- especially since many PR firms do not disclose their
> client lists.
>
> On the other hand, a policy that requires PR firms to be transparent
> about disclosing whenever they edit an article related to a client or
> a client's interests, coupled with the restrictions that I outlined
> above, would be reasonably enforceable. PR firms would be discouraged
> from anonymous or POV editing by the strong possibility that they
> would be identified and embarrassed for doing so.

I would prefer that PR firms do not edit in mainspace at all, but
confine themselves to talk pages, where indeed they should identify
themselves if they are at all ethical, or risk embarrassment. The goal
of a PR firm is pretty basically not compatible with NPOV; while the
basic information they have to spread may be valuable, any
contributions made by them would need careful checking to minimize the
effect of outside entities trying to compromise our neutrality. In
talk space at least they are simply suggestions to be acted on as time
permits rather than something being presented to the reader as
encyclopedic material. No, we cannot identify all of them, but we
don't want to give the impression that this is something we want or
will allow if only someone will jump through enough hoops to do it.

We are already an incredibly attractive target for those who have a
view to push; they know about us and how to game us and aren't going
to disclose their biases if they think they can get away with not
doing so, policy or not. (Indeed, I've seen enough who try to deny
their association when called on it.) I worry about what will be
allowed to slip in if we do not explicitly take a stand against it.
That we have to rely on the judgment of our editors to determine when
our policies are being violated instead of having a nice clean line to
draw makes it difficult, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

-Kat


--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage  |  G/AIM:LucidWaking
mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone
The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving
-- Lao-Tzu        Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Erik Moeller-3]

On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Of course... That takes us back to the "then they well just operate in
> secret" argument.
>
> I guess my counter is: We already have PR firms operating in secret.
> If we can't deal with secret POV pushing PR firms who can afford to
> learn the processes schmmoze our editors, then we've already lost.

That is unhelpful rhetoric. What does it mean to "have lost"?
Wikipedia is not going to disappear tomorrow just because we have some
PR in some articles. We can deal with secretive activities when we
detect them; that is not a logical argument for not creating a
framework where these organizations can achieve some of their aims
(where they are legitimate and in line with our own) while not doing
harm.

You can easily compare this to the struggle against sock puppets and
trolls. Sure, we can "deal with" sock puppets and trolls when we
detect them. That, again, is not an argument for not building policies
and community structures where harmful behavior is neutralized in ways
that do not lead to such disruption.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 8/22/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I guess my counter is: We already have PR firms operating in secret.
> > If we can't deal with secret POV pushing PR firms who can afford to
> > learn the processes schmmoze our editors, then we've already lost.
>
> That is unhelpful rhetoric. What does it mean to "have lost"?
> Wikipedia is not going to disappear tomorrow just because we have some
> PR in some articles. We can deal with secretive activities when we
> detect them; that is not a logical argument for not creating a
> framework where these organizations can achieve some of their aims
> (where they are legitimate and in line with our own) while not doing
> harm.

As you admit, we can deal with secretive activities, so obviously we
haven't lost...

Our existing mechanisms are fully functional. We don't need special
ones for PR firms any more than we need special cases for Congressmen,
TV personalities, Gibraltarians, Friends of Gays (okay, perhaps
them...) , or anyone else.  My argument, which you've accused of being
unhelpful, is simply that should our mechanisms for dealing with
clandestine POV pushers fail, any issues with identified biased users
will be trivial by comparison.

We have an existing framework where anyone can 'achieve their aims',
so long as they are aligned with the aims of the project. We call it
editing, and we're very open about who we allow to participate.

If someone is acting in our interests, they are indistinguishable from
any other good editor. We don't need to create a special framework for
people who come to Wikipedia with little interest outside of their own
benefit. We have one for them already: banning.

I'm sorry that I didn't make this more clear in my prior post.

> You can easily compare this to the struggle against sock puppets and
> trolls. Sure, we can "deal with" sock puppets and trolls when we
> detect them. That, again, is not an argument for not building policies
> and community structures where harmful behavior is neutralized in ways
> that do not lead to such disruption.

I'm confused; our policy on socks and trolls is that we do not
accommodate them when they make their interest known.

Wikipedia is not for trolls, just as Wikipedia is not for PR firms.
We should rightly tell both to go away.

Some trolls return in secret, but we can deal with them.

I have only proposed that we treat PR firms exactly the same way.

--
Greg
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Erik Moeller-3]

On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > That is unhelpful rhetoric. What does it mean to "have lost"?
> > Wikipedia is not going to disappear tomorrow just because we have some
> > PR in some articles. We can deal with secretive activities when we
> > detect them; that is not a logical argument for not creating a
> > framework where these organizations can achieve some of their aims
> > (where they are legitimate and in line with our own) while not doing
> > harm.

> As you admit, we can deal with secretive activities, so obviously we
> haven't lost...

I said "when we detect them." When we don't, they do us harm.
Logically, more secretive activity means more harm. Furthermore, there
is always the risk of false positives and unfair accusations.

> We have an existing framework where anyone can 'achieve their aims',
> so long as they are aligned with the aims of the project.

That would suggest that we should try to incorporate neutral, factual
information that they provide.

> I'm confused; our policy on socks and trolls is that we do not
> accommodate them when they make their interest known.

A sock puppet is typically a returning user who has been punished by
the system and is trying to evade enforcement by creating a new
identity. Our processes (ArbCom etc.) are geared towards reducing the
number of cases where we have to use hard enforcement tactics that are
difficult to implement in an open environment, and instead encourage
the use of soft enforcement. Users are often willing to accept such
soft enforcement because it preserves their existing identity
and reputation. When too much hard enforcement is used in an open
wiki, it often breeds an atmosphere of suspicion, as sock puppetry is
difficult to detect and the rules become more difficult to implement.

We do not accommodate "sock puppets", but we accommodate users whose
behavior is slightly harmful (rather than being completely harmful,
such as vandals) by trying to integrate them into the community and
providing a safe framework of interaction (as well as a clear record
of their past activities). This reduces the risk of turning them
_into_ sock puppets, and thus, the risk of more harmful activity
within our community.

Analogously, the WP:COI process suggests encouraging PR organizations
whose behavior we consider _slightly_ harmful to work "within the
system" in a fair and responsible manner, rather than turning them
towards secrecy and disruption in ways which are _more_ harmful
because they, like sock puppetry, breed an atmosphere of suspicion and
are generally harder to trace and detect.

--
Peace & Love,
Erik
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Erik Moeller-3]

On 8/22/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> When too much hard enforcement is used in an open
> wiki, it often breeds an atmosphere of suspicion, as sock puppetry is
> difficult to detect and the rules become more difficult to implement.

I should also add that, once a user has decided to "become a sock
puppet", they will then also often feel no longer any obligation to
follow _any_ rules or processes of the community, except in the
interest of avoiding detection and punishment. A user who, in
Gregory's words, is branded a "criminal" does not have much respect
for policy.

On the other hand, if we allow someone like MyWikiBiz to submit
articles through an open process, it will be hard for them to cry foul
when a fluff piece is turned into a factual article incorporating
criticism.

The WP:COI page is perhaps a bit poorly structured. It is really a
process of article submission from interested parties. This is
something, I think, we should encourage, and ideally facilitate
through our own web services, community and policies, rather than
externalizing it in ways which are difficult to track.

Wikipedia has a tradition of soft responses to slightly harmful
behavior, which I believe to be the only appropriate strategy in a
technically open environment. If we required a real world ID and
background check on everyone ever editing Wikipedia, that might be
different.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On 8/22/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Simple answer: add a clear disclaimer template at the top of WP:COI
> articles, and delete them if they are rejected by the community. This
> is much easier if there's a standard process (there's that evil word
> again) to follow.

That's the first suggestion that sounds plausible.

"This article has been edited by the company in question or an agent
acting on its behalf. It may not conform to the neutral point of view
policy or may omit important facts."

It would not be unreasonable to ask a PR company simply to disclose
the fact that they've edited the article by stamping it {{pr}} or
something (calling it "conflict of interest" is probably going to put
them off).

To be honest though, I don't see what the big deal. We have zillions
of articles with all kinds of problems all over the place. Since when
is the greatest of our problems a sympathetic article which just
doesn't mention the fact that Foofoocom Industries got sued in 1983
for poisoning its employees?

I suspect also that any damage to our reputation will be confined to
articles about companies. People will quickly learn to take our
articles about companies with a grain of salt - hell, I already do.
They're already one of our weakest areas.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Gregory Maxwell]

On 8/22/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I said "when we detect them." When we don't, they do us harm.
> Logically, more secretive activity means more harm. Furthermore, there
> is always the risk of false positives and unfair accusations.

Lets look at the possibilities:

-In a world we where tell PR Firms not to edit:
* PR firm follows the rules, doesn't edit.
**Pool of editing people decreased
**Harm of biased insertions avoided
or
* PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
**We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
**We fail to detect it: harm remains.

-In a world where we invite PR firms to edit after jumping through hoops:
*PR firm follows the rules, edits (with boiler plates and notices)
**Editing community size increased by the addition of editors driven
by monetary interests in certain POVs.
**Rightfully distrustful users overscrutnize every word, things we
would normally accept are rejected
**Worst of the bias removed, their ability to use Wikipedia for PR
mostly suppressed.
**Still some bias and POV leak through, but now through a blessed channel
**Patient and well funded PR firms are able to wikilawyer to game the
system, because we have no blanket prohibition.
* PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
**Feel justified because we've permitted them to edit, but not allowed
them to actually accomplish their goal.
**We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
**We fail to detect it: harm remains.

To me it seems like a simple question: Is it in the project's interest
to invite a group of editors who for the purpose of enabling their
outside agenda?  If our agendas coincide, they can just edit as
individuals... it's only in the case that they differ that we must
consider here.

To me it seems obvious that any successful system of inviting edits by
PR people would ultimately permit them to only make the same edits
they could make as normal editors (and likely a bit less due to
community paranoia).  The PR firms that wish to insert bias will
quickly learn to do it in secret, so we've gained nothing... and we
lose the high-ground position of a blanket rejection policy.

> > We have an existing framework where anyone can 'achieve their aims',
> > so long as they are aligned with the aims of the project.
>
> That would suggest that we should try to incorporate neutral, factual
> information that they provide.

We accept neutral and factual edits from any person.

[snip]
> We do not accommodate "sock puppets", but we accommodate users whose
> behavior is slightly harmful (rather than being completely harmful,
> such as vandals) by trying to integrate them into the community and
> providing a safe framework of interaction (as well as a clear record
> of their past activities). This reduces the risk of turning them
> _into_ sock puppets, and thus, the risk of more harmful activity
> within our community.

Do we have any data to back up the position that use of hard
enforcement typically turns a slightly harmful user into willy on
wheels?    As far as I'm aware, this position is just speculation.  I
won't argue that being soft may allow a slightly harmful person to go
on contributing while remaining slightly harmful, but I'm not aware of
any solid evidence that being hard makes them into something worse,
and I'm aware of fairly little evidence of slightly harmful folks
becoming unharmful.

> Analogously, the WP:COI process suggests encouraging PR organizations
> whose behavior we consider _slightly_ harmful to work "within the
> system" in a fair and responsible manner, rather than turning them
> towards secrecy and disruption in ways which are _more_ harmful
> because they, like sock puppetry, breed an atmosphere of suspicion and
> are generally harder to trace and detect.
[merge]
> I should also add that, once a user has decided to "become a sock
> puppet", they will then also often feel no longer any obligation to
> follow _any_ rules or processes of the community, except in the
> interest of avoiding detection and punishment. A user who, in
> Gregory's words, is branded a "criminal" does not have much respect
>for policy.

Should we really expect the same behavior from bored 13 year old boys
in London, and judgement proof nationalist trying to do their part in
their nations wars via Wikipedia, as highly funded US corporations
with substantial liability and a reputation to protect?

PR firms can't effectively completely change their identity twice a
week... doing so would substantially obstruct their ability to obtain
and maintain customer relationships.

>On the other hand, if we allow someone like MyWikiBiz to submit
>articles through an open process, it will be hard for them to cry foul
>when a fluff piece is turned into a factual article incorporating
>criticism.

It's hard for them to cry foul when their business is outright
prohibited as well.

>Wikipedia has a tradition of soft responses to slightly harmful
>behavior, which I believe to be the only appropriate strategy in a
>technically open environment.

No one has proposed a depature from soft responses to editors.

In fact, I'm arguing that our handling of editors works well enough
that we don't have to create a special "permission to promote"
compromise in order to reduce the amount of secret editing that will
happen.

Our wiki's were an interesting target for spammers long before they
were an interesting target for press agencies.  We did not respond to
this activity by creating permission to spam and "This page has been
edited by an identified spammer".   We've addressed it with diligent
editors, a few technical measures, cooperation with others (like
google), and by showing respect for our project by having little
tolerance.   ... and I believe (and can substantiate with data) that
our efforts with basic SEO and spammers have been remarkably
effective.

I have seen no evidence why PR firms would be less responsive to a
similar handling. If anything they should be more willing to accept
that no means no.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
[hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l