User talk:CorporateM/Archive 3

Enjoyed your article about CNN's errors
Hello, Dave. I enjoyed your article pointing out CNN's error regarding Joe DeSantis's editing. Give people the facts and let them come to their own conclusions. Good job! --  Kenatipo   speak! 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Kenatipo. There is so much misinformation out there about marketers on Wikipedia. I keep seeing blogs/news saying that paid editors are banned from Wikipedia and so on. Someone needs to set the record straight. King4057 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Your blog articles
Could you please correct all those Social Fresh posts where you say "Wiki" when you actually mean either "Wikipedia" or "an article in Wikipedia"? You're a professional, you know better; you're teaching bad habits to the clueless noobs. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  19:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha - I don't know where I picked up that habit, but you're not the first to complain. Will do.
 * Fixed King4057 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Checking in
Hello,

I just want to stick my toe into the water, and let you know that I am reading up on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of PR. I have a lot to learn about PR (as a lot of CREWE members have a lot to learn about Wikipedia). What I can't accept though, is a paid "professional" who wants to work in a certain subspecialty, but is unable or unwilling to make the effort to learn ahead of time how to do the job right. Editing Wikipedia ain't rocket science or brain surgery.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  04:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If PR/SEO/Digital Marketing/Branding/Legal communities could recognize ethical Wikipedia editing as a specialty (they don't), I think that would be the single most crucial step forward.


 * There are obstacles with economics and greed, but that is where marketing communities should evolve (ourselves) to become an asset to Wikipedia, instead of a burden.


 * Editing Wikipedia is easy as a volunteer, but you'd be surprised how tough it is as a consultant. Ever try to tell a company they're not "worthy of notice"?


 * My Talk page is always open and welcoming. Feel free to drop by anytime. King4057 (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

re Wikimania
Thanks for the invite, appreciated, but no I won't be attending, I don't travel well and don't have a passport and so forth. Herostratus (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey King4057 - interesting topic! Have you thought about asking Jimmy to sit on the panel?  It's one he's very interested in.  You might also think about User:Risker - I know she intends to go.  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As to "Paid Advocacy Watch", not sure. I'm in a bit of burnout mode right now and have some non-Wikipedia stuff coming up on my plate, so not sure. Herostratus (talk) 03:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Worthy of notice"
Just a reminder that "worthy of notice" is not a Wikipedia threshold but rather "notable", which means that the topic has received significant coverage in several independent reliable sources. So, if you are working for a company that is not yet "notable" by Wikipedia standards, then that does not mean that they are unworthy of notice. Ought it not be a PR professional's job to help the client obtain that coverage in reliable sources? Then and only then would that company become notable and eligible (not worthy) for a Wikipedia article.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  20:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. In fact, approximately 56% of tags on articles that are part of the Wikiproject for Companies are requesting the very authoritative third party sources PR agencies are in the business of obtaining. It's in everyone's best interest that years of good PR work become immortalized in an encyclopedic entry.


 * However, if you look at sites like Elance, there's a lot of people hiring Wikipedia writers to create entire articles based exclusively on first-person interviews and people take the job. I spend a lot of time trying to convince non-notable companies to just leave Wikipedia alone (for Wikipedia's sake)


 * Of course I was referring to this line in the notability guideline: Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice".


 * Almost anyone with a decent PR agency and a sizeable investment in publicity should engage with Wikipedia following ethical best practices, but that's not everyone. King4057 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Incoming
I've sent you an email. Risker (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Got it. And responded. Hope my discussion on your page is welcome. I realize it's a heated issue.King4057 (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's all good
David,

You don't need to be apologetic about anything you've said on my talk page or the CREWE Facebook page. So far, as I see it, you've conducted yourself very well. Now, I may disagree with you, or even take you to task in the future, but it will always be from a foundation of respect, and an assumption of good faith. As to "CREWE membership", I don't see joining in a Facebook group as a profound commitment but rather an agreement that there are issues worthy of discussion. So, call me a member until and unless I get fed up and depart. Everything I do in this regard is with the goal of improving the encyclopedia. If and when that no longer seems a likely possibility, I will move on. Until then, I will speak frankly.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was a clueless noob for a long time, but I'm conducting myself better every day. ;-)
 * Thanks for the reassurance. I've been involved in discussions on how we can improve contributions from paid COIs since before CREWE was founded, but never took the position that it was Wikipedia's fault or that we shouldn't have to take the time to learn. I do hope they end up focusing their efforts on learning how to improve their contributions to Wikipedia. King4057 (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

CREWE discussion
I have mentioned you in discussion here: talk:Corporate_Representatives_for_Ethical_Wikipedia_Engagement

Cool article, by the way!

 Wikipedians also recommend biscuits with tea.

 Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  has given you a cup of tea. Tea promotes WikiLove   and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.

Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

BTW do you have any sources on all the work of you trying to build collaboration before CREWE even existed, because it looks like this Gomes guy and Friends that banned you wants to try rewrite history to make him some kind of pioneer when you were out on the homestead years before. -- Mistress Selina Kyle  ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  21:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tea! It did make my day!
 * Probably a more productive way to go about it would be to submit an RFC to work together with other volunteers with varying viewpoints to create a formal response to CREWE that can be shared with the media and within CREWE.
 * The article does have an overly positive slant, but this is because the PR members of CREWE have themselves obtained one-sided articles in the media.
 * One of my objectives with articles like this, is to help get the voice of the Wikipedia community get heard by the PR profession.
 * You do realize that the paid advocacy watch had a mission statement to ban editors like me? They didn't get very granular on who the bad guys were. Even so, I repeatedly encouraged Herostatus to keep the paid advocacy watch alive.
 * Bottom line, it takes a lot of time, work and investment to ethically engage with Wikipedia as a paid editor with a COI and develop the expertise to do it well. So while I encourage more people to make the same investment, I don't appreciate those looking for shortcuts.
 * King4057 (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * PS - my suggestion would be to make an RFC simply on whether a response should be made and not on the contents of that response, which would require further discussion. King4057 (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Aw thanks, it's not always quite as appreciated, lol An RFC sounds like a good idea, I've never made one before but could be a learning experience I guess, I have done a lot of reading on policies lately but that's not really something I looked into yet, hmm. I think "Silver Seren" who started the Wikipedia group is trying to stir up trouble to try silence opposition (and is probably reading this via my contributions too -.-): Wikiquette_assistance


 * I guess I shouldn't give in to what seem like intimidation attempts but I should probably wait for one of my mentors to come online and talk with them first anyway since I'm trying to steer clear of dramaboards til I learn more to avoid breaking rules (I removed a bunch of personal attacks on me before per wp:RPA for example then was told even though it's policy it's an unwritten rule to not edit other comments... very confusing like a couple of people have said on the rules they sometimes conflict with each other wihich is kinda frustrating lol


 * RE: the article sounding like an advertisement because the sources they got are all positive, yeah totally, it's a case of PR being written by PR -.- And some of the blogs are actually written by themselves.


 * Yeah, I know wp:PAIDWATCH was originally meant to be a ban on sight thing I agreed with that at first mostly out of instinct I think, but looking at it realistically there has to be some kind of cooperation to encourage people to act within the rules, just not the lobbying of trying to change them to suit. I still think that ones who openly ignore the wp:COI rules should be, but banning ones that admit openly that they are is not what the policy says, so yeah! Editing is allowed by paid advocacy editors just no on their subjects obviously, and there's always edit request, it's nice to see at least some people starting to encourage using that. I've never edited the Wikipedia Review article, the rules are pretty clear on that stuff it's not hard to understand I think. I'm glad at least some people are genuinely trying. You should try get some stuff in the media to point out that you've been trying way before they set up their lobby group, otherwise yeah, they are just going to rewrite history it seems. -- Mistress Selina Kyle   ( Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉ )  00:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have some projects coming down the pipe, which I hope will be good examples of a paid COI editor making the type of improvement that should be encouraged rather than tolerated. However I don't think anyone should give in to a defeatest attitude. Paid editors will always be here and volunteers will always be here to deal with each one appropriately.


 * You'd be surprised how complicated the ethical land mine gets. For example, there are rules supporting the removal of content lacking sources and no specific policy telling companies not to abuse this rule to censor negative, uncited information. It's not Wikipedia's responsibility to conjure up every possible scenario and create even more specific (but simultaneously short) instructions for what Wikipedians already know as "common sense".


 * I think the biggest issue is PR people have to adapt to Wikipedia, not the other way around. This mess is our fault. I own, am apologetic and even guilty of some of my first edits. It's time PR does the same as an industry and becomes better for it.


 * Appreciate the discussion. It is a heated issue with varying viewpoints, so if the community does create a response, it may not necessarily reflect our viewpoints exactly.
 * King4057 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't find any admin on CREWE (there aren't many) who has banned David. Looking now, he's not even on the list of banned members. (There's only one and it ain't him.) Near as I can tell, there's no evidence that David was banned and, in fact, his contributions were certainly valued.
 * I never made myself out to be a "Pioneer." I had something to say and I said it. Apparently, it resonated with some people. That doesn't take away from the work others have done. --Philgomes (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Some reasonable (but incorrect) assumptions were made in Mistress' note. John Cass defined my point of view as promotion, then said if I continued to share it "however subtly" I would be banned. I had never been so offended in my life and quickly departed. The same comment Mistress pointed out as a clear example of not being promotional, is what John called promotion, because I mentioned "my clients."


 * He created a very elaborate way to single me out because I (a) insisted PR people made bad edits (b) promoted expertise (c) in some rare instances identified myself as being a Wikipedia consultant. For instance, in one case someone thought I was a Wikipedia administrator and I corrected them. My Facebook settings are set on private for personal use, so I assume no one can see who I am.


 * I received this note - which read like "agree with me or I'll ban you for promotion" - right after posting a disparaging comment about the group's lobbying efforts and complaining about misinformation in the media. Then John later clarified in the public string that he felt I was there to dissuade the group from their mission and grossly misrepresented my contributions to paint me as a spammer, making it overwhelming clear (if it wasn't already) he had singled me out for political reasons.


 * In any case, point (a) that PR people make bad edits will be overwhelmingly clear when my next blog post goes up, which includes 20 examples of edits made by IP addresses and usernames associated with the top ten PR firms by revenue. I've done my best to make which edits belong to which firm anonymous to make my point without singling out specific agencies or humiliating them. King4057 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
User_talk:Ocaasi Ocaasit 08:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

More talkback
User_talk:King4057/CREWE Ocaasit 22:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you still looking for a mentor?
I've been editing WP for 6.5 years and think working with content experts or their representatives is an inevitable and positive next phase of WP growth. I'm glad to see that some folks in the PR community have developed a platform for "playing it straight". If you want to look me over, I'd be glad to talk with you, and if you're interested, I'd like to ask you some questions as well. BusterD (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey Buster. I've seen you around on Jimbo's Talk page and on the issue with Joe obviously. I have questions too, but I'll let you fire the first volley. King4057 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd like to get a sense of you as an observer. You may choose one or more of the below to pursue.
 * 1) Here's a deletion procedure ongoing: Articles for deletion/Cribbage (strategy). I've already taken a position in the procedure. How do you feel about various positions taken? Don't feel like I'm testing your knowledge of policy and guidelines; instead please tell me me what you see and what you think.
 * 2) In 2009 I created this biography of a minor legal figure, Wendy E. Long, someone who made appearances in media relating to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Very recently this figure has chosen to run for US Senate from NY. A new editor has chosen to modify the page. Again, tell me what you see and what do you think about it. Do you think something untoward is taking place? As a person who self-identifies as being in the field of public relations, how does the recent work make you feel? How would you proceed?
 * 3) Please read Talk:Peter Tomsen. How do you feel about the interaction of myself with the paid editors? I took a lengthy wikibreak just after this interaction, so haven't pursued this pagespace much since. How might an editor proceed?
 * 4) Please look at Vicki Iseman, who was a subject of a New York Times article about lobbyists and former presidential candidate John McCain. On the talk page you'll find links to deletion procedures. Feel free to look around and then let's discuss the case for notability. You may notice that I was an involved party, a contributor to the page, and that my views have matured greatly since my first interaction with the space.


 * No rush. Read and get back to me in your own time. If we're going to work together, I'd like to know more about how you think. Note again, I'm specifically NOT asking you about procedure or policy. I'm more interested in what you see and how you feel a paid editor might act in these situations. Thanks for your interest. BusterD (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) I support the article's deletion, because (a) no citations (b) doesn't belong as an independent article and (c) Wikipedia is not a strategy guide. However I do think the author could probably rewrite it as a well-cited "Cribbage Mechanics" section for the main article. For example, instead of saying "you should fold if you have hand XYZ" which is strategy guide / how-to, it could say "Players with an XYZ hand statistically will lose 83% of the time.[1]" These kinds of mechanics and stats would certainly be good information for an article on poker.


 * 2) I have seen plenty of witch hunts where volunteer editors are accused of being paid advocates simply for writing something favorable about a company. That being said, it sure shows all the classic signs: single purpose account, trying to mirror the Wikipedia article to their resume, demonstrating no understanding of Wikipedia citations and copyright issues, editing wars, etc. It seems the appropriate action is already taking place with some initial friendly warnings, which may escalate as needed to COIN or a ban. Though these actions should take place for disruptive editing, rather than Outing the editor and banning for having a COI.


 * 3) It seems the paid editor just wanted to "get the article started" which is ok. They didn't submit the best content in the world, but they also didn't insist on maintaining control over the article. They didn't provide more citations and images, which would have been helpful, but they're not necessarily required to. Just an overall mediocre (but acceptable and reasonably ethical) job. Nobody would hire an expert to do that kind of work, but I think it's a good collaboration for your average passer-byer who chooses not to hire an expert.


 * 4) I see why there was a lengthy discussion, because it's such a borderline case. Ultimately the whole thing seems rather inconsequential. Even if McCain were a client of mine I wouldn't bother entering the discussion. Paid advocates should help make Wikipedia more complete, accurate, neutral, etc. not bicker over petty details in borderline cases that are already being handled by neutral volunteers. However I could see how you might have been lectured for declaring consensus or putting out a 24-hour timer. Both would be particularly inappropriate as a paid editor.


 * King4057 (talk) 01:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that User:Buster7 and I are two very different human beings. I claim only to be a compiler of minor biographies, mostly people very very dead indeed. I have on two occasions entered threads on Jimbo's user talk page, the last time left with a very bad taste in my mouth. Unlike Buster7, I have had no interaction or reaction to anyone associated with a political campaign (until Ms. Long put her cap in the ring, and Iseman notwithstanding). I have been reading your blog and wonder why you even consider a need for mentor-ship. You seem to have made a good faith attempt to absorb the culture of the pedia over a long period of time. This is laudable. What benefits do you hope to gain through a mentor-ship process? BusterD (talk) 02:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh I got the two Busters mixed up. My goals:
 * I would like to improve my overall writing style. I was considering applying for a regular mentor instead of a COI mentor. I feel that in my effort to be neutral, the articles I'm writing right now become a series of disconnected facts, abandoning good storytelling.
 * In some cases I will have complex scenarios that test me and it would be good to have a companion I can discuss things with. For example, the Euclid scenario I'm working on now involves two for-profit corporations with competing interests on the page regarding an issue of complex international law and politics.
 * I don't do much of this today, but I would like to do more editing of actual subjects on behalf of market-share dominant/leader companies that are losing revenue due to dated information on their product category.
 * I have so many policy questions on a routine basis.


 * In short, my bar of expectations is higher than most COI editors. Your typical PR person asks "how do you get edits/articles passed Wikipedia's editors?", which is a "just skating by" mentality. There are so many paid editing services, but I don't feel anyone has really nailed the bulls-eye yet on doing it right by Wikipedia. My aspiration is nothing short of being the best COI editor on Wikipedia and attracting the appreciation - not tolerance - of the volunteer community. King4057 (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The very best of luck in that regard. Your efforts to explain paid editing and inform the wikipedia community from your unique standpoint is commendable. Your committment to become more than just "one of those paid editor guys" will broaden your outlook and ours. While at times I may seem to be oppossed to paid editors that is not the case. I am oppossed to the subtle nuances that a professional political operative uses to hide facts from our readers. I'm oppossed to the fact that the operative probably has a team of volunteers that can con-fab about whats best for the candidate. Whats missing from the paid operative/paid editor/paid advocate world is the bond to Wikipedia . I cant explain it but I sense that you are becoming aware of that bond. BTW, all my input here and there around Wikipedia pertains to political operatives...and the protective cloak they can throw over an article. Good Luck W/Editor BusterD. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Buster7!! I often use anecdotes with sales, lobbying or PR to describe paid editing on Wikipedia. In all these cases someone with expertise and time contributes with a bias to a neutral decision-maker. However, in all of these real-world cases relationships corrupt the neutrality of the process by reducing scrutiny and criticism. I think that's the root of where you take issue? And I would agree that, especially on controversial issues, it would be a best practice to get a randomly selected editor through the request edit process.


 * The fact that we have a team behind us is a good thing if we have a hard-lined ethical consultant that can stop the entire team from adding puffery or removing bad stuff. It's an educational process. But that team is the one correcting misinterpretations of the citations, providing paid-access sources, providing content from hard-to-find books, experts that can fact check and clarify, etc. Resources is where paid editors can be an asset to Wikipedia, assuming they don't come at a price (bias). I think a paid editor that guards an article against bias or vandalism is a good thing, but it's a fine line between that and taking control.  King4057 (talk) 18:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I feel very much the same with a team of Wikipedians. I believe because I trust the process and the team, I can relax and allow my edits to be freely changed or reverted. Perhaps naively, I trust the team, even (and I might say especially) when I disagree on the merits. Please feel free to look over the third email here, a page which dates from 12/2006. I'm genuinely concerned I might learn to trust the culture LESS if I know some editors are here for another reason besides creating the best online encyclopedia possible. This is my issue with paid contributors.

To illustrate my concern, this audio file from a 2006 Wikimania plenary session gives voice to a reason why paid editors might not be a great solution. It's worth listening to in its entirety. For a few minutes before, and specifically just after 19:30, Yochai Benkler makes a case, using Jason Calacanis as a whipping boy, that using paid contributors doesn't do credit to or promote the entire culture of what Benkler labels commons-based peer production. At the end of the audio, around 43:10, during a Q&A Benkler is questioned pointedly by Calacanis, in the audience at the time, and has a response to behavior Benkler labels as crude, and "failing to understand". If you haven't read Benkler's book The Wealth of Networks, you might consider putting it on your reading list; a link to a pdf version is at the archive link above.

My highest concern is for the changing of culture and social norms developed entirely in an environment free of overt tampering (to use a prejorative-sounding phrase). When a good number of the editors are present for some other reason than self-selection, inevitably the social norms will change and then the four-legged platform will no longer be viable, the entire project will simply become MySpace, IMDB, or the Huffington Post, a fungible commodity with much less value, a value irredeemable. A poisoned well. BusterD (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That third email is really powerful. I too have had personal experiences that have demoralized my perspective on human nature - in completely different personal circumstance - but I can understand how Wikipedia is an oasis of neutrality in a world of corruption. One that needs to be protected at all costs. And by "all costs" corporate complaints are the least of what we should be willing to sacrifice. I don't have any opposition to this view, that we need to protect the ethos, culture and neutrality of Wikipedia, nor would I disagree that it is extremely difficult for a paid editor to support - not erode - these principles. It's so hard, that any meaningful, consistent examples are almost unheard of. I can only say that I'm up for the challenge of bucking the trend. King4057 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mentorship would imply homework and necessitate plain speaking (fewer multiple negatives, for example). And would not engage flattery. You seem a reasonable fellow, and based on my reading, a clear and sincere thinker. I AGF this is the case. The point in the linked email is that my discouragement didn't start with the reasonable person; its roots were deep below the surface of my contemporary understanding. I believe Benkler expressed concern that under such assault, the underlying culture would be affected negatively.


 * I had a dream last night. What if Wikipedia were hosting scores of busy paid editors, each making a hundred reasonable and gnomic entries for every tiny slanting edit? What if confessed academics boldly and determinedly slanted history articles toward a simplistic contextual understanding of complex issues? What if a tiny group of (some self-identifying) zealots dominated discussion of geopolitical pagespace? How would I feel about Wikipedia then? After waking up this morning, over tea I read my morning watchlist, and pondered whether I had been dreaming, or in fact remembering my assessment of the previous evening's watchlist review. IMHO, the poisoning of the well has begun. I'm not willing to facilitate such gradual destruction. In this context, I could only assist those who pledge and prove themselves willing to protect the five pillars, and conservatively defend the social norms currently in place. BusterD (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh gosh, I didn't know what to expect when I got an email ping saying I was in your dream. As a generalization I think paid editing is far less common and certainly less sophisticated than volunteers tend to think. There isn't even enough understanding of the fundamentals of how Wikipedia works amongst marketing communities to systematically corrupt anything. I support the status quo and think that paid editing is handled appropriately already with AfC, COIN, the COI guideline, etc. though my view isn't popular.


 * As a side note, this is an article I'm actively working on. The process for this article first started in December 2011, so I feel like I've become a better editor since then and am working to improve the citations and such. I would be interested in feedback on how I handle my COI, but also to become a better editor generally. Like how far should I take Wikification and are there better ways to format the pictures? Or editorial tone and flow. King4057 (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, editors like you were not in my dream. IMHO, the paid editing thing is much more common, much worse and much more subtle than volunteers think. I believe PR folks may be trying to do things correctly (public relations professionals have a code of conduct), but to my view some folks have been taking this to a high level for some time (it's always been the wild west in the arena of "think tanks" for example).


 * I'd say your query isn't a side note at all; rather the whole bean. First, it's a dramatic improvement over the existing pagespace, but it's a very puffy work right now, IMHO. From an editorial standpoint, I'd think about not pulling for the company so much. I'd say encyclopedic tone is a major area where the sandbox space needs attention, but I wouldn't start there. I'd start with formatting citations and fixing disambiguation, since these are areas where sheer effort is going to improve the space. Visit WP:CITE, Citation templates and Citation tools. You need practice with this material and here's a great place to get it.


 * Next, I'd start on structuring the history section much better, and as part of that process I personally would spend time improving the pages of the linked related company articles, like Bendix Corporation and AlliedSignal. Since these companies are defunct as corporate entities, I see very little COI in improving these pages and much reason from HA's POV these deserve treatment. I'd be staring at really good company pages like Microsoft and trying to work within the WikiProject Business and Companies ideal, using Business FAs and GAs as resources as well as Company FAs and GAs.


 * But all that is shooting too high. Nobody can bring an article as complicated as Microsoft to FA status by themselves. IMHO, you should be shooting for B-class status before any other consideration. If you can fill out the mature tool WikiProject Military History B-class checklist and feel confident you've met that tested standard, then nobody at WP:Companies is going to gainsay you. If you actually want my advice, I'd say work on something NOT related to your objective and get some practice in a low-pressure environment. I often recommend COI editors playing it straight help me with other COI pages I've discovered.


 * At this point in our familiarity process, I'd have zero objections if you interviewed me a bit. BusterD (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I failed to give you props for 1) your sandbox effort on HA, and 2) your newest blog post. Both #1 and #2 meet my standard for protecting the five pillars. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Buster!!
 * For disambiguation issues, is there a bot or other tool that will tell me which links on the page go to a disambig page?
 * For puffery, can you give me an example? Being neutral with a COI is probably the single most important (and difficult) skill in this whole thing.
 * I'm probably long overdue for doing proper citations. I'm reading through that now.
 * I'll restructure the history a bit. King4057 (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * History section restructured and substantially improved. The Reference Formatter is amazing. I also went through Honeywell Aerospace for some areas that were basically factual, but sort of chest pounding. Even though I said I probably wouldn't I implemented the citation templates as well, which makes the references look MUCH nicer. King4057 (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's my interview questions:
 * I'm not a corrupt million dollar business (not even much of a business person at all). I charge a fair hourly rate for an experienced marketing person, which I think is an improvement over contingency-based payment and other fee structures used for paid editors. But it costs companies more to hire an expert than ask their intern to spam marketing copy, so there's a good bit of money involved. How do you feel about that?
 * How do I feel? Like a sucker. But not very much. I think people who want to write for hire, and can write well, and can work within the spirit and letter of the five pillars, policies and guidelines, should be able to do so. If I could find a situation writing for hire on historical subjects, I'd be happy to do it. So I hold no grudge against talent finding a way to gain renumeration. I admire the way the wikipedian-in-residence program has provided dedicated and qualified representatives to institutions and helped bridge the gap between both needs. IMHO, local historical societies will be needing wikipedians-in-residence, perhaps as consultants, and I could very much see myself in that field of endeavor as I retire from the day job. As "payment" for my mentorship, I would like to see you make voluntary contributions toward pagespace, some of which I'd designate. This would help Wikipedia, myself, and ultimately you and your reputation as a self-identifying paid editor. Win, win, win.


 * If it's any consolation, it's not quite as glamorous as some might think. I've worked on one project that involved over 50 people before everything was fact-checked and approved. Each one had to be educated and many paragraphs get re-written several times in off-line editing wars as I fight to keep puffery, bias, censorship, etc. off the page. Other times I'm beating off prospects with a stick that want to throw money at me to make their problems disappear. I have to tell people they are not "worthy of notice" and that their Wikipedia article isn't bias - they are. But what I love about it is the same thing volunteers like, learning new things all the time. I also have a lot of respect for Wikipedia's neutrality and function. I have a blog post coming up telling readers Wikipedia is the best place for a company to set the record straight on controversial subjects, because it's the most fair.


 * I'm hesitantly up for more volunteer work - at least more than I do now (which is almost nothing). Keeping in mind it should be far removed from current, former or prospective clients. I could probably help coach non-paid COIs or work on scientific or business articles that are drastically under-served. I say "hesitantly," because I'm not sure the volume you're expecting.
 * You should deign not to hesitate. Working on non-paid projects gains you 1) the experience of doing stuff which you need to learn anyway and 2) the appearance (if not demonstration) that you're here to build a powerful and worthy online encyclopedia. And I said volunteer. I did not say quid pro quo. Be not dismayed. Here's an example: I need to check an article against the WPMilHist B-class checklist. This would not take a lot of time and fresh eyes would make it a simple matter. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How would you respond if I made a mistake? Not in an overt way like censoring scandal, but say you felt I found a favorable editor to approve my edits or didn't handle something the right way.
 * I would expect you to own up to it and make it right. People make mistakes. Things happen. After seeing an employee err, a former employer once told me: "this is the problem with hiring human beings." IMHO, that attitude makes it easy to aspire to do your best. So long as you desire and attempt to do your best (while following the spirit and letter of pillars, policies and guidelines--which I'll henceforth refer to as SLPPG), you will find me an ally.
 * SLPPG - LOVE IT. Especially the "S"


 * Are you comfortable being somewhat involved in off-wiki coaching? To many in marketing circles, I'm the Wikipedia authority, but I'm a newbie compared to a Wikipedia administrator. It's important that I not only earn it, but that I'm saying things publicly that the volunteer community would generally support. I've grown cautious of making any public statements that would tell marketers to just read these three quick tips than go edit away.
 * ''I'm impressed with what I've been reading in your blog posts. I believe that if you are sincere, and I'll assume good faith you are, helping you outside of the wiki would also be in the interests of myself, wikipedians, and Wikipedia."


 * How would you suggest I handle a situation like this? A Wikipedia administrator informally disclosed an intense real-life negative COI/bias about a company. However, he didn't stick to the Talk page, but instead has made edits that paint a very reputable company as "shadowy."
 * I'll request you more closely identify the party or parties involved and the edits you judge as painting. I could make some assumptions based on my reading of the pages, but I want to be sure we're talking about the same situation and circumstances.


 * User ProhibitOnions has revealed a clear bias and was heavily involved in the article a few years ago. Other neutral editors also got involved. For example, the article states
 * "journalists and writers have had difficulty developing fully informed accounts of mistakes which McKinsey employees may have made."
 * McKinsey's Investment Office is "secretive and low-profile"
 * Stuff like not discussing client situations or disclosing fee structures are under "Criticism" even though these are routine business practices and a standard of professional conduct.


 * Some of these are pretty overt, but others are more complex. IMHO bullets 1 & 3 are just patent junk, but #2 is at least based on one blogger's criticism of some complex, IRS-approved tax arrangements for which the investment office was involved. But it's an example of a complex scenario involving multiple bias editors where I could be required to sort things out with a potentially confrontational editor with admin rights. Of course, Prohibit hasn't even touched the article in years...  King4057 (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd start by placing tags at the end of any questionable statements. In a BLP, such uncited assertions would be immediately actionable, and in this case, I tend to think several uncited assertions violate our pillar of neutrality. I wouldn't concern myself with the editor or editors; instead I would focus on the pagespace. "Furthermore, knowing that a competitor has hired McKinsey has historically been strong motivation for other companies to seek McKinsey's assistance themselves." Really? Who said so? That's a pretty egregious violation of OR unless one could cite it with multiple sources. Let us start our mentoring process by trying to do the right thing in this case, and see what other editors say. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What do you think are my responsibilities to an article? For example, I may only improve the "Justification" section of the NextGen article (see the Talk page). I won't improve the criticisms section, but I also won't remove or censor it. That doesn't mean I'll overtly hide major controversies from company articles where I wrote the whole thing.
 * I'm not certain how to answer this question at this exact moment. I believe I've adequately covered my view of your responsibilities regarding SLPPG. Next Generation Air Transportation System seems an important topic. Even if you're coming to the situation with some inside info, this is important stuff. I should make something clear: just because you write something doesn't mean you will be able to control it. WP:OWN makes it clear that our work, once submitted, is available for the whole internet to edit, change, disagree with, and discuss. The best way of avoiding changes you would prefer not to see is to write the best cited, well-researched pagespace possible. Citation anchors assertion and raises the bar for removal and (especially) misleading vandalism. Wikipedia will likely be online after you and I have passed from this earth, and will continue to change, or be rendered entirely anachronistic. One of the compliments I give wikipedians is that their edits are "enduring." I use that gerund to describe writing which will likely stand the test of a thousand papercuts.


 * You may wish and are welcome to question me further. Based on what we've learned about each other, I'll accept you as a mentee, if you choose to accept me as mentor. I may not be the only viable candidate (John's pretty sexy). BusterD (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest we create a new discussion page, say User talk:King4057/BusterD mentoring where we can have discussions directly related to the process, but so others can read and possibly contribute if they choose to look in. We might establish a short set of lists: a "want list" from you of objectives and projects, a "work list" from me which leads you toward skill development, a checklist of policies and guidelines which we MUST master, and anything else which pleases us. BusterD (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here you go. I agree with everything you're saying RE volunteer work. I even put forth a proposal on Wikiproject Cooperation that paid editors donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, but realized volunteer work is a better way to go about it. Why don't we put a rough (very rough) number around it? If we're talking about 5-10 hours a week of volunteer work, that's very different than say 20 or 30. For now I'd love to see what volunteer projects you have in mind if you want to start a queue on the workspace. King4057 (talk) 18:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I've created User talk:King4057/paid editing workspace so we can have a place to discuss and plan, keeping the space you created as your own objectives list. I've also taken a liberty of moving your name into the Accepted mentorships list. If we "break up" later on, no big deal for either of us, no hard feeelings, ok? BusterD (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

New member
Hello. I am a new member of Wikipedia's registered user community.

--MaxAMSC (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello and welcome King4057 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been registered as a 'paid editor' to be monitored.
Herostratus has you on a special little list. &rarr;  Stani Stani  02:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm aware. I originally copied the list concept over to Wikiproject Cooperation, but there were some concerns that it could promote stalking and punish editors for disclosure. It's hardly a secret that I'm a paid editor. I disclose my username on my website, I blog about it, I guest blog, I was in the Wikipedia Signpost a while back. I would imagine by now any list of paid editors would be incomplete without me. King4057 (talk) 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So there's been a complaint that the list might violate WP:ADVERTISING. I believe I have fixed the problem. Cheers! Rklawton (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Lawton, this is the funniest thing I've seen all week. "BOOMERANG!" I'm about to keel over.


 * Can I add myself to the free list too?  King4057 (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see why not. Rklawton (talk) 03:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I came across the deletion discussion and made a suggestion. King4057 (talk) 05:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)