User talk:CorporateM/Archive 1

Spreading the word
Hello Mr. King. I am an editor for Wikipedia's in-house newspaper the Signpost. We were going to run a short news item on your blog post, but I've just seen your comment to FT2 and Jimmy Wales and wondered if you were interested in directly addressing the Wikipedia community? Skomorokh  22:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

That post by Danny Sullivan is pretty funny. Sure. Like an advocacy type post? Personal narrative?

King4057 (talk)


 * I think if we gave you a full platform for an advocacy post both of us may be teared from limb to limb, but I was thinking of perhaps a 200-300 word pull-quote we could append to the report on your Socialfresh post. Perhaps with the intent of pre-empting some of the likely responses. What do you think?  Skomorokh   23:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Draft
Today Wikipedia's most ethical COI contributors are literally fearful of Wikipedia, handcuffed by their legal department, scared of what the community might do. Maybe they should be. Meanwhile, our worst contributors are often rewarded with salvaged advert. On Wikipedia the system for COI appears to work, yet offline I see another story.

I see multi-billion dollar companies with some of the most ethical business practices in the world and a well-respected product getting slammed on their Wiki by opinionated garbage and speculation written by a customer blowing steam four years ago. I see an angry ex-employee writing "next in line for chapter 11" on the Wiki of a profitable multi-billion dollar company that's doing just fine. That fictional chapter 11 statement stayed up for weeks, was un-addressed by the community and read by thousands. I see a place where controversy and criticisms are well-covered, but stories of growth, culture, leadership and success are not. Where Apple and Google get quality articles, but other notable organizations are victimized by a community that breaks the rules for neutrality, verification and encyclopedic tone. A place where few notable organizations have the quality full-length Wiki they deserve and the party most motivated to write it is afraid. Where community members with a negative COI against the organization are effective, but positive COIs are not.

COI contributors introduce bias, but I'm also concerned of the bias without them. Some of our most knowledgeable and motivated contributors are COIs. Does that mean we open the doors wide? Absolutely not. COIs are like political lobbyists. We're needed but our participation needs to be a delicate and well regulated one. But through teamwork, education, awareness, process, a better ecosystem we could change the tides. We can get more ethical contributions and less advert. We can improve the quality, completeness and balance of articles while reducing the volume of issues on COI noticeboards.

Most COI contributions are unhelpful, frustrating, require policing and drag the community into angry, venom-spitting conversations. The system is designed to police those edits after the fact. How can we make those edits better in the first place? I have some ideas and I think Wikipedia can become a better, more accurate, balanced, updated Wikipedia that will retain more quality volunteer editors if we discussed it and came up with ways to reward positive COI, punish bad COI, get more of the good and less of the bad.

King4057 (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Tweaked it a little, but it's a good start. Remember that many readers will be hostile and dismissive to such ideas by default. You might consider a more arresting opening line, and perhaps greater emphasis on the fact that the current system rewards unethical COI contributors while punishing the "good guys". You cover this point, but it could use more punch to ram it home. Another point that might be worth mentioning in passing is that few editors who aren't COIed are willing to do a good job of business articles (it's alluded to in "other notable organizations don't get..." but not explicitly called out). So in general, a little more directness might be an improvement. Cheers,  Skomorokh   13:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Edelman (firm), you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Gillette and Sara Lee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

responded at Signpost
I'm quite serious and think it would be a good exercise. But if people want something I can't give, it won't work. If people want to provide free info - of course it will work - but maybe a little bit slowly and not quite exactly what they want. Smallbones (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, one of my thoughts on this is a review and approval cycle. This is something I've started encouraging informally and is conceptually similar to the suggestion for a free content post the community can put into the article if it meets criteria. Take the post on Edelman, which I'm working on in an attempt to get my first Good Article nomination. Years ago, the entire article was just a list of three major controversies. The wiki was bias in the opposite direction. What if Edelman wrote a new article and they rewrote or removed the criticisms. That's inappropriate. But what if they could submit that article to an admin for review, who could leave the controversies as-is, but recognize a lot of good content about their rich history and culture. I don't think the policies need to change, just the processes and the way we work together.


 * PS you see the news today/yesterday about another PR agency busted?King4057 (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

TB
 S ven M anguard  Wha?  15:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Email
--Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Apriso for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apriso is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Apriso (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SmartSE (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I was checking through your contributions when I found this where you said "I certainly don't have a point-of-view on the company, so I don't know what point of view I've unknowingly incorporated into the article." - would you mind saying whether you were paid to write the article? FTR WP:CORP requires at least two published articles that directly address a company - if you can find them then it's great, but I couldn't and I guess that you couldn't before either. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Taking a brief glance here I see some articles that may satisfy the requirement, but it appears they may be more focused on Apriso products than Apriso as a company, which I always felt don't really count as much. However you could consider making the article on the FlexNet product as oppose to the Apriso company and the requirement would therefore be satisfied.


 * Being somewhat familiar with Apriso's business and how broadly they are used, my instinct is that they are notable, but I don't think I would have written the article today, acknowledging it as - at the very least - a borderline case for notability. Manufacturing automation isn't exactly a topic that gets widespread media coverage, but they are a name within manufacturing circles. I was reimbursed for that article in the form of a Thank You, but not financially ;-)


 * Happy hunting. I'll be hoping the article does stay up, but I don't really want to get involved. Better to let you guys talk it over. If the community deems it not-notable, then they are probably right. King4057 (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey again, thanks for the link. I don't think they're enough for an article about Apriso, but you're right that there might be enough sources out there for an article about FlexNet, but the content in the article at the moment isn't really encyclopedic IMO so there isn't any point saving it. SmartSE (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Way too many press release sources as well. King4057 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cooperation
I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silver seren C 00:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Question
Why is Gregory Kohs a member of the CREWE group? He certainly doesn't follow or likely wish to follow at all the purpose of the group. I was just wondering, since I saw him being rather active in commenting on the FB page. Silver seren C 07:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know. He's the one that invited me to the group, which was started by Phil Gomes from Edelman. I was actually charmed by the fact he invited me, even though I've openly criticized his form of paid editing. Perhaps he is fishing for clients, or just hopeful something will result that will motivate him to come to the ethical side or just having fun.


 * I've actually been reviewing some of my own recent articles on GenArts, Matthew S. Collier and NetBase and still feel some of them are too commercial and have un-notable product details that are reasonably comparable to the issues brought up with WBToo on reciting menu items. I'm personally eager to use the mentor system to become a better editor.


 * However, Hero's before and after shot raises some pretty clear issues from a paid editor (WBToo) that refuses to acknowledge his mistakes. I've encouraged WBToo to apologize and move on - to avoid votestacking and other issues in the future, but he refuses to acknowledge wrongdoing.


 * I don't mean to be a drama queen. He's a more experienced COI editor than I and I'm sure he can do good for Wikipedia, but since he is one of the very first participants in the project, I think it would boost the credibility of the project if we can convince him to acknowledge that he crossed the line. Otherwise it appears the project is supporting paid editors that remove negative encyclopedic information. If you check out Hero's before and after shot, it's overwhelmingly clear inappropriate edits were made. King4057 (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just don't think he's really any benefit to the group, since his motivation is to discredit both Jimbo and Wikipedia if he can. But... *shrugs* I guess that's up to Phil.


 * I'm going to wait and see what WWBToo's response is first before I formulate an opinion or take any actions. It may be that you're being too harsh on him and he does apologize and admit to it being a mistake. We'll just have to see. Silver  seren C 08:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

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)