User talk:CorporateM/Archive 6

Your request on my talk page
Sorry I hadn't responded. For various IRL reasons, I've had an extended break from all things internet. I'm intrigued and interested in the seminar; however I am not so sure I can participate. It is tough for me to get involved in a weekday program like that. Depending on when and what exactly is involved, I may be able to participate, but I have a hard time committing to anything. But it sounds interesting. -- Jayron  32  02:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll just ping you again when we get closer? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 14:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ohai
Just connecting with you re EthicalWiki --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! Maybe we can talk again if I bump into you later at the conference. What's on your mind? I'm also at dking@ethicalwiki.com User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

PR Editors
I recently read this article and found this portion particularly interesting: "respondents familiar with Wikipedia’s editing guidelines, 23 percent indicated that making changes was “near impossible,” while 29 percent said their interactions with the volunteers who monitor “talk pages” were never productive."

I don't know what percentage I would consider acceptable. Obviously zero would be ideal but I don't think it's reasonable. Any thoughts?  Ol Yeller21 Talktome  20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am a PR professional and a paid advocate on Wikipedia, but (like most Wikipedians I think), I find myself unsympathetic to the latest wave of rhetoric, which I find counterproductive. No, I don't think it should be zero, but I do think the percent of PR people that find their engagement on Wikipedia productive should correlate with the quality of their contributions. I would therefore guess that a higher number would be ideal, due to the lack of PR people that are equipped with the skillset, know-how and determination to engage with Wikipedians in a way that's productive for both parties and brings value to Wikipedia. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

SP op-ed
Hi King, regarding your proposed op-ed, I would suggest you look at previous op-eds (listed here) for ideas on how to format your piece. :-) I'm also not a huge fan of the image sandwich with carrots vs. the road. You also may want to simplify it; structuring the whole piece around a single, unifying idea – rather than dividing it between multiple ideas – is likely to get more responses from readers. Regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yah, I see what you mean. I need to pick either sticks and carrots or the idea of doing PR instead of paid editing on Wikipedia. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 14:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, getting all of the ideas out there could be good for people already intruded by the idea, but it's more interesting and easier for first-time readers to grasp if you structure it around one thesis. :-) Keep in mind that you are free to link to a page that has more information. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, take another look now. Because I have a background in PR, I think that is where I can offer some perspective that is unique and gets people thinking about it differently. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 03:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's starting to look a lot better! It still needs quite a bit of work though. You're going to need a hook at the beginning to bring readers in, and you're going to want to read through it yourself to see how it sounds (some parts are rather disjointed). "Additionally, CIPR is operating training classes" -- where? "What we can do" - who is 'we'? Wikipedians? (some people won't see a paid editor as one of them). What is PAIDWATCH?
 * Also, I'm actually hoping to run this tomorrow because we apparently have another installment in the "paid editing" series, and I like consistent themes... so if you could work on the op-ed tomorrow, I'd appreciate it! :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Working on it now. What time today do you need it to run? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 14:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, 'tomorrow' UTC time. I'm planning to have it go out late tomorrow UTC (or ~6pm US Eastern time). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed. I gave it another cull-through or two. Can you give it another look? I feel like I'm too close to it. Is it boring now? User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It'll need some copyediting, but that's much better. If you could, I know that you're close to it, but read through it one more time. Would the arguments there convince you? Do you feel they will move people who don't care much about the topic? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool - I've had a day away from it too. Working on it now. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think it's better now. Sorry you have to hold my hand - my thoughts are only formulating as I write it ;-) User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for EthicalWiki
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of EthicalWiki for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article EthicalWiki 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/EthicalWiki 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 high-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) 18:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't really have an opinion on notability. It's clearly a borderline case where editors can reasonably (and have) disagreed. But if you still have questions about my approach to COI, I'm happy to answer them here.  User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 20:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Op-ed stuff
Hi. I cleared the talk page of your op-ed, but the material can still be viewed here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just read OrangeMike's piece. I don't think our pieces are at odds actually. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

COI editing
Hi. Some months ago, the Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation contacted me. They had tried to edit their pages and had been blocked for meatpuppet editing and edit warring. Could I help them? Yes! I went to their offices and explained to them more about how the encyclopedia worked. They asked, would I help them edit the articles (pro bono) if they did the research and sent me suggested language. I said yes, but that it must be Neutral, etc. So, over the next few months, I upgraded the Foundation's page, all of the Guggenheim museum pages and some of the related pages - Guggenheim family members, directors of the museums (I even started pages for some of these), etc. Often, I had to do a lot of research myself to make sure that the most important sources were used and cited and to keep it neutral, but I was collaborating with an intern at the museum, and with her help, I was able to get a lot done in a relatively efficient way. I think that now the Foundation's page is pretty good, and nearly all of the other pages are at least C class. I also worked with some COI people on pages related to Hydrogen vehicles. I'd be happy to share experiences if you like, although I must go on a two-week wikibreak starting Thursday. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great story and a bulls-eye for my thinking. I think there is still room for EthicalWiki to create articles, but I find that it's an uphill, unnatural kind of relationship for everyone. What I do is difficult, not scalable and so on. This is something much more sensible and scalable. It doesn't require PR people to learn 200 rules, to be neutral, invest in expertise, or even a substantial resource investment. Just get your intern to do some legwork for us and help us write the article.


 * The big question in my mind is what practical steps we can take to encourage this kind of behavior/relationship more often. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When I write articles, I generally reach out to the subject and ask them to review my article before I post it so that they can point out inaccuracies or provide additional information. I also ask them to give me the information instead of editing the page directly.  I rarely get a response but never really expect a response and when I do get a response, my questions are sometimes misunderstood meaning that the success rate of this method is very low but perhaps it's a good starting point.  Ssilvers opened a discussion with the subject of an article and the results were positive so maybe propagating his method would be more successful than my own.


 * We'll never be able to get every company to review an article about their company before it's published but the method used may be usable, if improved. I've always considered this a good way to work things out although it will almost always mean that communications between an editor and a company are off-wiki.  Perhaps a Wikiproject or team that creates a unified method of contacting PR agencies and companies themselves could help bridge the gap between PR and Wikipedia.  I think the group would need to be "official" in some way and even so, we couldn't stop others from impersonating team members, for whatever reason.  Ol Yeller21  Talktome  17:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * What about a community-written letter to PR agencies. Someone with no interest in doing for-hire work themselves could send the letter to PR agencies. I would also be willing to do some pro-bono PR work to send the letter to PR magazines. It could caution them that directly editing Wikipedia is controversial, while encouraging them to contribute in this manner. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)