Talk:Draft best practice guidelines for PR

Please use this page to discuss the draft guidelines. Please comment in good faith! --Stevie Benton (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Volunteer time is precious

One thing I'd want to see added to anything PR people have to read, regardless of what policies we have on Wikimedia projects is simply this...

Volunteer time is precious. Wikipedia backlogs are enormous, and there's a strong feeling in the community that there aren't enough volunteers to cover the amount of work that needs doing: the number of administrators isn't growing to handle the backlogs and we tend to find ways to increase the amount of work we have to do.

Most volunteers come to Wikipedia to work on interesting encyclopedic topics. That might be some very academic topic like economics or psychology or literature, or some more geeky topic like trains. PR people need to be aware that the volunteers they are dealing with came to Wikipedia with no desire to spend their time dealing with PR people or other paid corporate representatives. Nobody wakes up and thinks "you know what I want to do today? I want to ensure that Edelman's clients are fairly represented on Wikipedia!". Most Wikipedians would rather be spending their time reading up on and editing on Victorian poets or obscure military leaders or the history of political ideologies or the Roman history of some small English town than having to deal with PR people.

Even on the more meta side: if I'm going to spend however many hours training someone to edit Wikipedia (or fixing their errors or cleaning up after them in the administrative processes or whatever), and that person is going to go off and write articles about military history or Lady Gaga singles or whatever, that's fine. That's a valuable use of my time. Spending the same amount of my time teaching a PR person, even if they are nice and enlightened and grok the whole markets-are-conversations Cluetrain stuff, it's still a waste of time to train them on how to edit Wikipedia as the most we are going to get out of it are improvements to client articles.

Even the good PR people can be a massive timesink and distraction from the primary work that Wikipedians are doing, namely building an encyclopedia. This may be misguided of me, but I don't think it's irrational: if the community are being asked to collectively and individually put time and resources into helping and working with PR people, it's perfectly reasonable to ask what are we getting out of it? —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

(Tom asked me to look this over in my capacity as "en.wp admin who is not all that hostile to PR people and sometimes even tolerates them!" I'm not a member of WMUK, just an opinionated American.) I think the core of what Tom's saying here, that PR professionals should remember that volunteer time is valuable, is good. It is absolutely the case that, even among those of us who are willing to work with "paid editors", we're still not getting paid for helping them do a job that they are billing for. However, the point of this, as far as offering it as guidance to PR people, should not be "we hate you, stay away", or even "you're a waste of time, but we're nice enough to put up with you." It should be, "Our time is valuable too. Please spend some of the time you're being paid for anyway familiarizing yourself with the way Wikipedia actually works, so that we don't have to spend the time we're not being paid for repeating to you beginner's stuff that anyone who wants to touch Wikipedia ought to know."

To that end, one of the first steps in any set of best practices we provide to PR professionals should instruct them to read our guidelines. Obviously, just a blanket "read our rules" isn't going to be all that helpful - we have so many policies, guidelines, and essays that I doubt even the most experienced WP admin can say they've read all of them - so what we're (you're) going to want to do is lay out those policies that are most relevant to the issues PR professionals are going to be addressing. At a minimum, I'd say that prior to their first edit, all PR professionals who want to interact with Wikipedia should be reading: WP:5P, WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:COPYVIO, WP:NOT, WP:USERNAME, and WP:TALK. Many of these are neatly encapsulated in en:Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and that's a very good jumping-off point, but people who want to use us in the course of their work really ought to do us at least the courtesy of reading through all the actual policies.

The key thing I want to distill from Tom's comment, really, is that PR people may perceive us as a means to an end, and that's not always a hanging offense if they're willing to work with our rules in the process. However, if they want to make use of our encyclopedia space and our users' expertise, it's their responsibility to come into that having done their homework. We're here (those of us who are willing to work with PR people) to assist and guide them, not to do their jobs for them, and one of the best things they can do to represent "PR people" as an industry to us is to show us that they're willing to do their work themselves, not splatter some press releases on a page and wait for us to fix it up. The trade-off, the "what we get out of it" when they do things right is that we get high-quality, comprehensive content that's being provided to us, with only minimal assistance and guidance by our volunteers. Fluffernutter (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I wrote this and then had an edit conflict. I think Fluffernutter also makes some good points which I hadn't considered

I agree with Tom's remarks. All sorts of problems apply. Cash donations sound good, but would they compromise independence. Should we make Wikipedia a w:en:supportive selling environment - I don't think so. Having had a brief skim through, I already find my hackels rising:

• "There is also conflicting advice within the Wikipedia community" - what "conflict" - what there actually is constitutes a range of views as you would expect in a community. We are not a corporation and a lot of this draft is trying to bang us into that sort of square hole.
• "Wales tells PR professionals not to edit directly but a small concession on the FAQ on a Wikipedia page . . ." OK, but it would be nice if they put in some interwiki links rather than expecting people to hunt stuff down. Also it is not a small concession but an alternative opinion. We are not a corporation!
• "The CIPR needs to work with Wikipedians to define what is meant by “minor” edits." I do not see why we need to this: if there is any doubt then it's not a minor edit, straightforward eh?
• "And others, such as Lord Bell, believe just because PR professionals are paid advocates, it doesn’t mean they are “lying”4 and not in a position to edit effectively." This is classic strawman argument (worthy of an edit war!). It is not whether paid advocates are lying, it is the matter of being biased. Also as being constrained by contractual obligations - whether as a direct employee or through another form of contract - everything they do takes place within the context of these additional legal factors which do not affect other editors, who are acting as free individuals. I do not think wikipedians want or need to be weighed down by a whole series of extra considerations when dealing with fellow wikipedians.

In the end perhaps professionals from the PR industry should consider whether its a simple matter that wikipedia is not their cup of tea ("its consumption is strongly associated with a calm but alert and focused, relatively productive (alpha wave dominant), mental state in humans") while at work, and just give it a miss. Perhaps they should reconcile their concerns with the epithet "no-one trusts wikipedia anyway" and edit pages on Startrek or Napoleonic militaryt uniforms when they are not at work.Leutha (talk) 19:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am confused by "...but a small concession on the FAQ on a Wikipedia page..." in section 'The Right to Edit', which I think is referring to w:User:Jimbo_Wales/Paid_Advocacy_FAQ. If it is referring to the FAQ, it should link to it, however it should also be clear that it is still a WIP. Overall I like this guideline. I agree with Tom's point about volunteer time, and that most volunteers would rather not work on articles about current people and corporations, and I would go as far as saying that a large segment of the community is opposed to indepth coverage of 21st century people and orgs, per w:WP:recentism and w:WP:NOTDIR, and also the English Wikipedia community efforts are most needed on non-Western pop culture as that is where our biggest gaps are. In short, engaging PR people is an opportunity cost, draining our resources (and enthusiasm) from the 'important' parts of the encyclopedia we would otherwise be working on. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Charles Matthews

Needs to be completely rewritten. Really. Anything to do with "conflict of interest" in the Wikipedia sense has to be handled in precise language. 86.6.26.208 20:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In more detail: the five pillars are not the key thing here. Neutrality and verifiability are. Linking to pages categorised as "basic information" is not really enough. The actual wording of the neutrality page matters greatly. 86.6.26.208 20:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Basic confusion. A noticeboard is not a WikiProject. 86.6.26.208 20:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the talk about "escalation" is potentially misleading. Certainly the first thing to do is to document an issue on a relevant Talk page, and/or use the OTRS system (the info@ email address). It is significant that OTRS is manned by volunteers. Then it is a question of getting outside involvement. The BLP noticeboard is a reasonable route in the case of information about living people (which need not be in a biography). An editor active on the page in question is a good person to discuss with, or an uninvolved admin. I don't think Jimmy Wales's Talk page is a solution that scales, however tempting it is to think that dealing with the top guy is the right approach. What you need usually is an experienced old Wikipedia hand who isn't moved by "noise". Dispute resolution, which is what comes next should be avoided, and it is unlikely that a case involving PR editing would get to the ArbCom. AN/I is the place for getting rough-and-ready community action in quite bad cases of edit warring. 86.6.26.208 20:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Re sections 3 and 4: these are clearly not directed towards the "community". But there is something basically misleading about the idea that Jimmy Wales could change "Wikipedia's policies", even if he chose to. The things that matter here appear to be three-fold: official policies; the community's attitude; and actually the terms of use of the site, which I think are nowhere mentioned. 86.6.26.208 20:56, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with removing Jimmy Wales's Talk page from the escalation path. PR people need to learn how to use WP properly, escalating problems through DR slowly, engaging assistance by talking to the most interested set of people; not bypass community norms by skipping DR methods and escalating quickly to the top. If PR people escalate quickly, they may find someone fixing the problem quickly, and the PR person may find that the quickest fix is to block the PR people involved. I think the basic DR escalation path should be summarised, simplified and explained for the PR context; escalate to relevant WikiProject first if the problem is not urgent, then a noticeboard as it becomes more urgent or tensions rise, etc. PR people should be encouraged to find community members who want to work on their topic, and work with them. John Vandenberg (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The new terms-of-use, and the particularly relevant section thereof:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use%20(2012)/en?utm_source=TOU_top_TestClone1#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities

86.6.26.208 05:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be very helpful to add a "Do" along these lines:

Do remain professional in approach at all times. In editing Wikipedia you are working alongside a volunteer community. Participation means you accept that.

In fact that point and respecting neutrality are in some sense the key ones. 86.6.26.208 05:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation

This seems to be a bit of a fork of Wikiproject Cooperation. Should we move it to a daughter page of that? Filceolaire (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

They are only welcome if they are here to make the encyclopedia better

This was the sentence that irritated me "PR professionals can use their communication skills to make a case for a different point of view to be included." We need to make it clear that if PR professionals are here to "Make a case" then they are wasting our time. They should only come here to help make the encyclopedia better. This is the very heart of what they need to understand. They are only welcome if they are here to make the encyclopedia better.

A lot of the time this will not align with their contract with their clients and, in those cases, they should stay away.

Remember that an organisation that works day and night to make the world better and is loved everywhere has little need of PR (e.g. the WMF). If this is you then chill. Your article may get vandalised from time to time but it will get quickly fixed and you have a reputation which can survive a minor blip on wikipedia.

An organisation which wishes to conceal what it does, because it believes the world would not approve, needs lots of PR. PR to give journalists your spin on events, lobbying to make sure the politicians don't make what you do illegal, astroturf to create a false equivalency between you and your opponents. The campaigners who oppose you will flock to your page and add lots of purple prose attacking you and wikipedians will hack it back to neutral statements then delete those because they don't have references. The activists will buckle down and get the chapter and verse for exactly what you did, every single incident, with references. Wikipedians will format it as a list. You will get an award for environmental responsibility and get a long article in a real newspaper telling about your new headquarters. Wikipedians will take a look and will smell something funny (You work in PR. You can smell a planted article. So can we.) They will quote the facts from the article. The activists will track down the author as your employee and get the quotes pulled as it is not a reliable source. The wikipedians will put it back but framed as "An employee said".

My personal opinion is that the best thing to do is to make your web site a wonderful reliable source for all kinds of educational materials about your industry (not just you company); all CC-BY-SA licensed:

• photos of buildings you built, roads you made, your factories, machinery, products - especially ones over a hundred years old
• historical information on when things happened
• basic technical stuff
• anything else we might possibly want to use.

This should be done by your librarian and some volunteer staff - not PR professionals.

If wikipedians like your company and it's employees they will be quicker trust you when the crisis happens, at least for a while. Filceolaire (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment from WereSpielChequers

As Charles has pointed out a major rewrite is needed. Whilst this approach isn't coming across as badly as the CREWE approach, there are several elements of it that put you on a collision course with the community.

1. Timing. You are keen to implement something in the next two months. My suggestion is that in the wake of CREWE's "research" survey it would be best to back off and wait perhaps a year before approaching the community again.
2. Agreeing a definition of minor edits or trying to change any Wikipedia rules. We already have a well established set of rules. An approach from the PR industry to find out our rules and to reassure us about any additional rules that your members sign up to would be more appropriate than an approach that sought to modify our rules to your convenience. And yes we have a help page that explains what a minor edit is. Creating "a full version which reflects the views of Wikipedians and the PR industry" implies that there is some sort of negotiation between Wikimedians and the PR industry as to what Wikimedians are prepared to allow PR people to do on Wikimedia. I'd suggest "a full version which explains the rules of Wikipedia to the PR industry" would be less contentious.
3. Transparency. Lord Bell may think that "the same level of transparency is not demanded from the site’s editors." But actually it is. If you have a conflict of interest then the same COI rules apply whether you are an employee of a company or an unpaid trustee of a charity. We don't need to know your real name, but we do want to know the conflicts of interest you have about the subjects that you edit. What he may be concerned about is that the same level of transparency is not required of editors who don't edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia has a policy of allowing anyone to edit, much of it was written by people who didn't even register a user account, and many of those who have edit under pseudonyms. That may be unsettling to the PR industry, but it isn't going to change, you are not the first to suggest this, in fact it has been suggested so often that it is listed under perennial proposals and has been at the core of various unsuccessful attempts to create a rival to Wikipedia. Paid editors and others who would like to identify those Wikipedia editors who choose not to be identified should be aware that when you say "We'd like the transparency of knowing who the volunteers are who write your articles" what we hear is "You know the secret sauce that made your organisation so successful? We'd like to take away one of the main ingredients".
4. Attending meetups. The Wikimedia movement runs various conferences and other real world events, some of which are formally open to anyone including the PR industry. Others are informal events for wikimedian volunteers and staff. If PR types attend these it may not be considered appropriate, especially by those who don't attend but suspect those who do of collusion.
5. Lord Bell may think that “It’s important for Wikipedia to recognise we are a valuable source for accurate information.” Wikipedia however is a tertiary source - an encyclopaedia written using facts sourced from reliable secondary sources. So a polite response to Lord Bell would be to explain that Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability not truth. That means that if the world's press are reporting that your client's chief exec has an allergy to your client's product, then don't expect Wikipedia to say that he has merely given up one of his favourite things for Lent; Convince the papers that they got it wrong and Wikipedia will follow suit.

What I think you should consider doing is giving PR types useful practical advice for dealing with the community. For example, If the images that we are using to illustrate the article on your client are dated and low quality, then why not commission some good quality images, release them on Commons and then tell people on the article talkpage. Secondly, don't just read the rules and start editing in your area of COI, if you want to edit Wikipedia start in areas that you care about and or know about, but don't have a COI about. So give your PR people a couple of days to write about things that they enjoyed studying or know about through hobbies. You know how some organisations have corporate social responsibility programs that include things like sending teams of people to lay a hedge on a nature reserve? Well that isn't so far from having some of your people improve our articles on nineteenth century music hall performers or third century BCE battles. WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)