User:Ocaasi/Gomes

The goal of these questions is to tell a story, your story. Please feel free to share instinctual answers as well as considered commentary, any tensions you feel about issues, or neat anecdotes that will help another editor see through your eyes. Treat challenging questions as an opportunity to explain your point of view, and remember that we're all here to build an encyclopedia.

What do you like about public relations? Why do you think it is important? How do you counter the cynicism that public relations is mainly 'spin'?
==The Public Relations Society of America lists 6 qualities that compose ethical PR conduct: Advocacy, Honesty, Independence, Loyalty, Expertise and Fairness. How are advocacy and loyalty compatible with honesty, independence, and fairness?==

When and why did Wikipedia come onto your radar as an issue for public relations? What problems did you perceive in the way that Wikipedia currently handles PR professionals or other paid editors?
==You wrote an open letter on your blog recommending a sea-change in how Wikipedia treats PR professionals. What motivated that post? What was the response to it, both in the PR community and in the Wikipedia community?==

==What do you think is Wikipedia's policy on PR editors working on the encyclopedia? Do you read the Conflict of Interest guideline as prohibiting all direct editing, some editing, or rather permitting any editing that is neutral?==

==There's a scandal-ridden history of individuals, groups, and companies editing their own Wikipedia articles. Do you understand why there's a high level of opposition and skepticism about encouraging or allowing PR and paid editors on Wikipedia?==

==Wikipedia's foremost principle is neutrality. Public relations officials are accountable to their employers and are hired to improve their profitability and commercial success. How are those two motivations compatible?==

What do you think a healthy relationship between the PR community and Wikipedia would look like?
==You and others in the PR community have made the point that many articles on corporations have errors and PR editors are in an ideal position to correct those errors. A recent PRSA study published by a professor at Penn State put the amount of articles with errors as high as 60%. What do you think the state of corporate articles is, and in what way do you think PR editors can improve it?==

==Your blog post evolved into Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE), a facebook group composed of almost 300 PR professionals and Wikipedia editors. What are CREWE's goals? What are you working on?==

==Jimmy Wales has been stridently opposed to any paid editors directly editing articles. That so-called "brightline rule" has led him to view CREWE's motivations skeptically, since the group is pushing for broader editing privileges than 'brightline' would provide. What's been your interaction with Wales, and what do you think of his position?==

Just like in any group, not all PR professionals are ethical. How can Wikipedia work with those who are while protecting themselves from those who are not?
==There is a current of concern among some Wikipedia editors that a horde of paid PR professionals is at the gates of the site, that they are using the issue of article inaccuracies as a wedge to get into the community, and that once they do they will overwhelm the unpaid volunteers with their corporate resources, expertise at spinning information, and pro-client bias. What would you say to assuage them of their fears?==

==Among the negative reactions to your efforts, there have also been new roots of cooperation, notably among some of the Wikipedia editors who have joined CREWE and also in WikiProject Cooperation itself. What do you think of those efforts? Will they be able to outweigh the controversy and entrenchment on both sides, or is this situation destined to be deadlocked for years?==

==Wikipedia is a massively influential site. You argue that accordingly, it has a responsibility to be accurate, and yet that it has locked out PR editors, not been consistent or timely in responding to article errors, and doesn't provide clear policy guidance. What do you think Wikipedia is doing wrong?==

==It's acknowledged that many editors have a bias of some sort, and the community does its best to neutralize those. Do you think the stand against those paid to edit Wikipedia or employed by a client with a Wikipedia article is different in some way that an unpaid bias? Do you think paid and PR editors are singled out?==