User:CorporateM/Archive 2

Wikiproject Cooperation Mentorship
If you still want this, then you should probably approach some of the other project members. Qwyrxian, maybe? Silver seren C 22:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Meh, I will wait a couple months. See how it pans out. We should add a spot for mentors to list themselves as well though like we have for requests. King4057 (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 Panel
Hi David, I saw your submission for a Wikimania 2012 panel here, and I am interested in participating.

I live in Washington, D.C. (where Wikimania 2012 will be hosted), have been an active and productive "paid editor" for awhile now, and am active in the CREWE group. Would you be interested in discussing whether I would be a solid fit for this panel? Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jeff! And I thought I had met everyone in the paid editing community. What's your story? I saw that WBToo wrote your firm's article. Did you learn from him? But it also looks like you're an avid volunteer editor. Looks like the firm has made its fair share of mistakes, but then so have I.


 * Lets see if the nomination gets any traction and - if it does - you should ask the CREWE group to nominate you to represent them on the panel. My expectation being that if CREWE is represented, they will need to put forth an experienced, knowledgeable editor with a verifiable edit history. I left the group after John's rude note. I don't have anything to contribute to a lobbying organization anyway, but would support the forum for ethics education and awareness as was originally discussed. King4057 (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well hello! To answer your questions/thoughts:


 * 1. Yes, I do know WWB Too, as he previously worked at the firm where I am currently employed. I have participated more recently in the Wikipedia article about my employer (New Media Strategies), but in order to ensure compliance, I never edit it directly. Instead, I have proposed changes and let other uninvolved editors/admins make the final decisions on whether or not the edit goes through (for example, see this discussion which resulted in this edit).


 * 2. Regarding mistakes, yes, there was a scenario earlier this year that involved a colleague in a different department who did not fully adhere to Wikipedia's policies. While the mistakes did warrant correction, they were misinterpreted by a blog which--as discussed in this WP:ANI thread--turned out to be factually inaccurate in its portrayal of the events. I've always taken a calm, collected and progressive approach to public relations/communications, and this situation prompted me to be more proactive in teaching others (internally and clients) the right way to approach Wikipedia. I sum it up as "disclose and discuss." If you take a glance at this thread on CREWE, Smart SE actually brought this up, and I responded several posts below to provide some context--ultimately it resulted in a very productive conversation between us all.


 * 3. I'd like to talk further about Wikimania and would be happy to share more about my background and Wikipedia-related experience with you--perhaps you and I could discuss via e-mail/over the phone? Let me know if you'd be open to that. Regards, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, you are Kevin King? I rather assumed your username was your real name. ;-)
 * Are you going to Wikimania? We should meetup there.
 * I'm at (919) 605-2115 / David44357@gmail.com. I don't have much to talk about, but I do think paid editors can learn from each other and should build community.
 * If Phil Gomes knows you, why did he write his blog and start CREWE instead of just poaching you or learning from you?
 * I've made many direct edits in the past, but I'm going to pick up Jimbo's advice. King4057 (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * How flattering--though I am not Kevin King. My name is Jeff Taylor, as described on my userpage (which, admittedly, is quite long). I do not know Phil Gomes directly, but I have been fairly active in CREWE so he may know of me. On the subject of direct edits, I agree with Jimbo's stance. While it takes a fine balance of patience and know-how to "stick to discussion pages," I've not had a problem finding other uninvolved, objective Wikipedians to review and implement my proposed contributions. And I sleep well at night :) Will be in touch via e-mail to discuss Wikimania --Jeff Bedford (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggested Next Steps
It looks like the proposal for a paid editing panel at Wikimania has a couple signatures already. What I suggest is that CREWE discuss who to nominate to represent them at the panel. This should be a good exercise as they discuss what views they hold as an organization and the person that best supports those views. When the discussion has run its course, send me a link. A few things to communicate

(a) I support Jeff Taylor's nomination. It's clear he's an experienced editor following COI best practices and he is even included in a list of best practice paid editors on Wikipedia. However, CREWE may choose an inexperienced or failed COI editor if they wish, who may better communicate a need for education or change, or even a Wikipedia admin involved in the group.

(b) Whoever is nominated should disclose their Wikipedia username so their success (or failures) and experience can be seen, depending on what the group is looking for exactly.

(c) As the group's founder, I think Phil Gomes' opinion should be particularly influential and actively sought.

(d) They should keep in mind there are many anti-paid editing advocates in the Wikipedia community. There will probably be at least one on the panel. Don't expect it to be all sunshine and rainbows.

I created this as a sub-head so you can link to it if you like. If there is no meaningful discussion in the FB group, I'll just put your name down. The panel submission itself is here for reference. I suppose they can sign it if they like, but we shouldn't astroturf it with signatures from paid editors.

Let me know what you think. I've also asked Herostatus and Silver if they are attending and willing to be panelists (from the two Wikiproject for and against paid editing). I'm going to suggest myself as moderator, being that I have more of an appreciation for all the viewpoints involved (well depending on what views exactly CREWE brings, but I will welcome their voice nonetheless) King4057 (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good--I think this is going in a productive direction. I just pinged the folks on CREWE to get their input, and will let you know how they respond. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there David, I've been preoccupied with non-Wikipedia things for the past few days and am just now following up on the most recent note you left on my user Talk page. Regarding the Wikimania panel, would you consider posing the panelist selection question to the CREWE Facebook group yourself? I am confident that the group would welcome your return. If you'd prefer that I ask, I'd be happy to. How would you like to move forward? Jeff Bedford (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Of Possible Interest
Thanks, but I'm not interested in joining the WikiProject, and I'm not going to any Wikimania events. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newt_Gingrich&diff=475702100&oldid=475692938 – It would be helpful if your blog entry were to contain information about what Joedesantis did wrong, especially about the repeated removal of "third wife":, , . The CNN article focused on revisions that were mostly harmless for some odd reason. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yup, one of the biggest problems is the article makes it sound like this is news (recent) when the only problems that ever occurred were over a year ago. It uses vague language to make it sound like he's still editing directly and the voice of a single editor to make it sound like using the Talk page is inappropriate. It implies the page was locked against him and many of their numbers of edits and such aren't correct among other things. I'll make sure to include that he did make mistakes a year ago (as most paid editors have starting out), but he listened to the community and followed the rules when notified. King4057 (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You've mentioned Buster7 and the award he gave Joedesantis. I don't believe that this is an accurate portrayal of Buster7. Buster7 stated clearly that he or she was "more than a bit hasty in [his or her] praise." Buster7 was also responsible for a conflict of interests case against Joedesantis, and even after giving Joedesantis that award, he or she started going after Joedesantis again. Buster7 was apparently upset about Jimbo's Email reply to him: "Your response to my email on this subject was disappointing. 6 or 7 words." I don't believe that Buster7 was ever a fan of Joedesantis, so your blog entry shouldn't portray him or her as supportive of Joedesantis. The award he or she gave to Joedesantis was probably just a peace offering rather than a sign of approval. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you!! I will post an update. Update/correction posted. King4057 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Very interesting. ```Buster Seven   Talk  05:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Cooperation
I'm very excited this project got started. I'd been meaning to do it myself for several months, but all the better that it's up and running. I signed on yesterday. I'm not set on Wikimania yet, but thanks for the tip. I am curious what direction you'd like to take the wikiproject. I have a few ideas that I sketched out here that may be interesting, although a bit scattershot. Cheers! Ocaasit 16:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh my, where to start. I wouldn't personally take the entire project in a specific direction myself, especially as a paid editor, but:
 * I'm just learning about GLAM and it seems like they've already paved the way with a nearly identical program that's already very successful. The difference being that non-profits don't have a history of misbehavior, are more trusted by the community and less likely to have critical commentary on their Wikipedia article. Seems like a rinse & repeat is in order with some changes to incorporate more oversight and governance. We shouldn't overlap/interfere with GLAM, but can use them as a model.
 * Many parts of the solution are right here in the real world and couldn't ever be solved on Wikipedia. Many media outlets and blogs are incorrectly reporting that paid editing is banned on Wikipedia. You can see my comments on CNN spreading misinformation here. The PR group keeps asking for more instructions, but the plain and simple guideline you yourself invested a lot of time in is only read 16 times a month. A friend made an analogy that WP's policies are like a tax code and PR people are left without a TurboTax, but TurboTax is a commercial product. Wikipedia can't take it upon themselves to create this software and go around educating every marketer. There has to be a way Wikipedia can help spark innovation in the private sector to get us to fix this problem ourselves. Ask MediaMap if they will develop a TurboTax of Wikipedia to sell to PR people and help provide guidance. Get events groups to include Wikipedia ethics in their education circuits and so on and so forth. No matter how many instructions, projects, etc. we make ON WIKIPEDIA, the majority of our target audience is out there in the real world and will never see it. We can't expect Wikipedians to go to every conference, write blogs, etc. We need to help the private sector create their own expertise around the topic.
 * Speaking of off-Wikipedia solutions, I think a Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn group based on the Wikiproject and the Paid Editor Help Page might get more use. These are tools many of our target audience is more familiar with. Someone would need to moderate them. Again, an area that should probably be a volunteer.


 * Hope this helps! King4057 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A Facebook page for the Wikiproject sounds like a really good idea. It would allow people to interact with us more directly. Silver  seren C 19:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)