Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Keep. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms


As stated by the title, this is a statement not by the Wikipedia community but by public relations firms that are listed at some length in the statement itself, along with other material relative to this external effort by some members of the public relations industry. It is, in effect, a press release hosted by Wikipedia. At its heart is a self-serving "statement" describing that they're going to be good corporate citizens. Fine. Do that. But make that statement on your own website or websites. Recently on the talk page we have a discussion as to whether a lengthy list of press coverage belongs in the essay. I say "enough." This page runs counter to WP:NOT, specifically that Wikipedia is not a web host, as well as  WP:ESSAYS. It is a statement by external parties concerning how those external parties should behave on Wikipedia and not by Wikipedia editors concerning Wikipedia. In addition, publication of this statement promotes the firms listed ad nauseum therein and I think it also is contrary to WP:SOAP. Coretheapple (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ESSAYPAGES, which states: "Essays about Wikipedia may be written by anyone; some represent widespread norms, others only represent minority viewpoints. ... Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created and edited without overall community oversight." Disclosure: I am the originator of this essay, and therefore ackowledge I have a vested interest in it. WWB (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you or any Wikipedia editor engaged in public relations wanted to write an essay from a Wikipedia editor standpoint, no one could possible object. It wouldn't matter what you say. You could talk about how you think p.r. people should behave, covering everything in this essay. The problem is that this is not an essay by you as an editor. It is a statement by external parties which are listed, with a solicitation for how to "join." Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the participants are required to maintain Wikipedia user accounts. Those who do not have been removed. You are trying to draw an arbitrary line around who "counts" on Wikipedia, and there's no valid reason to do so. This project is all about Wikipedia, and so deserves a page in the Wikipedia mainspace. WWB (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just don't think that public relations firms should utilize Wikipedia bandwidth for a self-serving statement naming your firms and in effect advertising what great guys you all are, how ethical you are, how upstanding. If each of you editors produces an essay of your thoughts no one could object. Coretheapple (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is quite bizarre - as Wikipedians we don't like it when PR people do things secretly and under the table to manipulate content on Wikipedia. So when PR professionals are attempting to be transparent and forthcoming and engaging us on our terms, on our wiki territory, in the spirit of dialogue, you also don't like it? You seem to be viewing the page as preening about how "great" the PR firms are, when in fact it's the opposite – it is a way to keep these firms responsible and accountable for their actions on-wiki. Want evidence? We know for a fact that shortly after this statement was signed on to, the MSLGROUP (5th largest PR conglomerate in the world) sent a memo around to their 3,000 staff that they are now officially a signatory to this statement, and for employees to abide by Wikipedia's Terms of Use and principles, and to engage on the Talk page first if they are working on Wikipedia. This was sent by their chief communication officer to the entire firm. That is a huge win. I'd invite you to rethink what this page has done and should continue doing in light of its effect on the industry. More can be found in this slide deck, from our Wikimania 2014 presentation, which I should note, we co-presented with Christophe Henner, currently Wikimedia Foundation chair of the board of trustees.  -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I realize how emotionally involved you are in this by dint of your undisclosed COI---you having signed this statement and been involved in it from the gitgo. But I'm not going to engage with an editor who chronically disregards the point of this MfD and distorts the points I've made, which I am not going to repeat. Coretheapple (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope - "undisclosed COI" is a characterization obviously untrue given my name is on the page, and I've done multiple presentations at Wiki* conferences the last few years, and at SXSW. I expected someone who nominated this page for deletion to have understood the contents and the issues, but I suppose that was assuming too much good faith. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 00:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't commit to memory all the participants in your project, and it's not reasonable to expect people to do so. It's a long list. That's why I think it's incumbent on the editors who are involved in this project to disclose their involvement, here, voluntarily. Not too much to ask, and your resistance to that is disturbing. Coretheapple (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the fact that you've spent 2/5th of this conversation trying to undermine people with accusations of a COI is disturbing. You've filled this page about some insignificant thing that no one else cares about.  Please get back to the context of the MfD and drop it already.  And leave Fuzheado, and everyone else, alone.  No more allegations.--v/r - TP 01:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, stop the nonsense. Look, why don't you drop the WP:STICK. and walk slowly backwards from the carcass. Coretheapple (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have, had you followed your own advice. Please, no more.  Get back to the MfD.--v/r - TP 01:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep on saying "get back to the MfD" after you've fired off a nastygram or some nonsensical hyperbole, and "stop responding" after you've trolled. Notice the pattern? Coretheapple (talk) 01:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If we all declared that you were absolutely correct and we were all wrong to doubt you, and that you are supremely intelligent and handsome and/or beautiful, will you finally let it drop and allow this MFD to proceed in a civil manner without personal insinuations and accusations?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 12:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you "keep" !voters are so anxious to "get on with the MfD," why do you fill the page with ^^^^ ? Coretheapple (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Time to ignore him. He just wants the last word and he doesn't understand how his behavior is disruptive.  I have a feeling that if we just stop responding to his disruption, it'll stop feeding it.--v/r - TP 13:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think you've said something like that about a dozen times in your zeal to stay on topic. This MfD is already mucked up by your trolling, so I don't see the harm in pointing that out. Coretheapple (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - fallacy that so called PR folks are inherently not community. This is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no policy justification for deletion. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 16:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I said specifically that PR people could write essays as editors with perfect validity, but that a statement by p.r. firms is objectionable. Why are you misrepresenting my position? Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Oh, you signed the statement. I didn't know, and you didn't disclose your COI. Silly question. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep—I am a signatory and admittedly biased, but I think it's far preferable to have this statement hosted by Wikipedia, where transparency is paramount, than on a third-party site. It's the most neutral and collaborative space for PR reps participating on Wikipedia to state their intentions, which in my mind aligns with Wikipedia's own goals to keep COI interactions transparent and collaborative. Keeping the statement on Wikipedia ensures it is as visible as possible to the Wikipedia community. Nor is it coming from Wikipedia outsiders: all the signatories have their own Wikipedia accounts and many of us participate actively in the community, both as part of our work and outside it. I also think this statement is more than a stagnant press release. It is meant to be a guideline for appropriate on-wiki behavior for PR reps. Therefore, it makes sense for it to be hosted on Wikipedia as an ongoing reference, both for PR reps who want guidance for how to behave and for other editors wanting to understand the structures by which we're trying to abide. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as WWB clearly pointed out, this page conforms with every bit of WP:ESSAYPAGES, and is clearly marked with (as recommended) an essay template at the top. You may not like the content or the people involved, and that's fine. But that's not a reason to delete it. FWIW I am not involved with this effort, I don't work for a PR firm. --Krelnik (talk) 17:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for all of the reasons above and the standpoint of sheer inconsistency. When I founded CREWE and decided to host that discussion on Facebook, I caught a ton of grief for creating an "off-wiki" group about Wikipedia. (Rationale: I needed to be where PR people were in order to make sure that the message of ethical Wikipedia engagement was in the same range-of-motion as that audience's other activities.) Now we're discussing an essay, on-wiki, by PR folks, discussing a very Wikipedia-compatible way for PR folks to participate. This results in a recommendation for deletion years after the fact? No, definitely keep. -- Philgomes (talk) 18:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whoever closes this MfD needs to look carefully at which of the responding editors are participants in this essay project. This essay is pure WP:NOT. You don't get a free pass by putting an essay template at the top. This is not really the views of a small number of editors. It is the views of an outside organization whose members became editors in order to be able to say that this is an essay representing the views of some members of the editing community. That said, another option would be to userfy the page, instead of having it in WP: space. I don't buy the argument that by having it here instead of at an external site, it makes it easier to keep track of. That's what external links sections are for. I could see a case for a different essay, written from an actual Wikipedia perspective, that summarizes what this essay addresses, and assesses, critically, what it says, from a Wikipedia perspective, while having the existing essay move either into user space or externally. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * After reading subsequent discussion, I want to update what I said originally. I still do not believe that the page should simply remain as is. But after thinking about this carefully, I believe that the idea to change it into something along the lines of WP:Wikiproject Paid Editing is an excellent solution, and entirely appropriate. So my first choice now would be to (1) move to user space for the time being, and (2) work it up into a collaborative project resembling WikiProjects. But if there is not consensus to do those things, then I would still say delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate some on the "wikiproject" idea, perhaps on the talk page? I don't understand what that would entail. Coretheapple (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of the discussion just below, of Jytdog's suggestion of the project. It's not like I have extensive details in mind, but it seems to me that, although the purpose does not fit well in the form of an essay, it fits very well as a group of editors working together towards a common goal. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Given the differing priorities (many editors would seek to use the project to eliminate paid editing, while others would use it to grease the wheels) I can't see a consensus developing. And certainly this page can't be an incubator for such an idea; there's not a sufficient breadth of participation in an MfD. Coretheapple (talk) 01:46, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I said to userfy first – WP:There is no deadline. But having a project where more editors would join, with differing opinions, would actually be a healthy thing: one could argue that the essay, as it is now, suffers from homogeneity of input. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is one of the most egregious cases of IDONTLIKEIT I've seen.  I am no fan of paid editing, I've been an active unpaid volunteer on en.wp for 13 years, and I have nothing to do with this agreement.  In the past I've opined on-wiki that paid editing should be completely banned.  But the community hasn't banned it yet, so paid editors are part of the community and have a right to post an essay just like any other member of the community.  If you are against paid editing, edit warring over an essay isn't going to win this war for you.  As long as paid editing is allowed, there needs to be a path for policy compliance for paid editors, so it is in the best interests of the entire community, not just those editors, to openly discuss on-wiki best practices regarding policy compliance and to publicize a significant collective effort towards that end.  Drop the stick, this is ridiculous.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * umm, this is a bit awkward that I need to say this, but User:WWB and User:Fuzheado please declare your relationship with any of the companies that have signed on (or any other relevant interest) as User:MaryGaulke did, who shows more and more that she understand WP's culture as well as its policies and guidelines, and as User:Philgomes kind of did.  If any other signatories or otherwise-related users !vote here, please declare your connection.  People who are not related don't have to declare that - it is what we assume.. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. I am the founder of Beutler Ink, which has has consulted with <10 of these firms at various times in recent years, some before the statement and some since, and not always about Wikipedia. As stated above in my original !vote: I am the originator of this effort. The initial meeting was my idea, which I then organized. I was not paid for it nor, was I subsidized by anyone. After what was generally seen as a successful conversation, I wrote the first draft of the statement, and all initial signatories gave feedback. Since then I have been active seeking more firms to join, and culling those whose haven’t maintained a point of contact. In that sense I have a relationship with all of them, but the statement remains an independent effort. WWB (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No COI whatsoever. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the essay under discussion, you were a participant at the meeting that generated the statement, and your name is on this thing as a supporter of the statement and efforts to recruit PR companies to join. (redacting to truncate Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC))


 * Your judgement here is ... way off. Which is kind of alarming Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. You asked to, "declare your relationship with any of the companies that have signed on" and I have no relationship with any of the companies that have signed on. I was an attendee at the meeting as a Wikimedia community member, situated on one end of the table with the PR companies on the other. This is not a secret - my attendance is clearly on the page and my involvement has been presented at multiple conferences such as Wikiconference USA, Wikimania and South by Southwest. I have had no paid or formal relationship with any of the firms. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 19:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not what I asked. I asked please declare your relationship with any of the companies that have signed on (or any other relevant interest). Your participation and signing on to this effort is clear interest in it, that makes your thoughts about it and responses to this MfD (obviously) different than somebody who is not involved.  This is something you ~should~ have disclosed with prompting. Without being prompted twice.   COI is not just about money and it is not a dirty thing.  It is just something that exists and needs to be managed, the first step of which is disclosure. Your lack of understanding of the fundamentals here is a dangerous thing. Jytdog (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel your comments are intentionally daft. Of course I have an interest in this page, as do you. Otherwise you wouldn't be editing it so fervently. I'm interested in it because it has allowed PR companies to show compliance and engagement with our community values. I never said I was not involved, nor did I ever say I wasn't interested. I declared I have no relationship (your word) with the companies involved and I have no conflict of interest (my words). You keep shifting the goalposts with "relationship," "interest," and "involved" and using them as rhetorical weapons to insinuate something sinister. My name has been clearly on this page since the start, and I have been giving public talks about this topic and the statement for years at international conferences, and even with the current chair of the WMF board. Please engage the issues and not in a fake witch hunt. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 21:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary to get into a big pillow fight over this. Suffice to say that it would have been useful from an informational standpoint if you had disclosed your participation in the page for the purposes of enlightening !voters and the closing administrator. As I mentioned below, I'm the nominator and I didn't notice it until it was pointed out. Prior to knowing that I was genuinely taken aback by your vehemence.  Coretheapple (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Fuzheado it is really, really unfortunate that you think asking people to declare COI = witchhunt or something sinister. That is so deeply wrong headed. I don't know what you have been through but you continue not to respond to me or to the core issues in Wikipedia.  Too bad for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jytdog, it's really unfortunate that you haven't dropped the stick already. Trying to undermine people's comments, especially someone who has been as dedicated and driven to the Wikimedia movement as Fuzheado, by nonsense claims of a COI is really beneath you.  It's a tactic I'd expect from others, not you.  Nearly 2/5ths  of this page is about accusations of COIs against editors commenting.  If you think he has a COI, whatever.  I really don't care what you believe.  But move on already.  He's not going to declare one just because you have a misguided opinion about this and think your opinion matters.--v/r - TP 00:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being a voice of reason. There is no conflict of interest, so there is no COI declaration. How can you say I "continue not to respond" when there's thousands of bytes above? It's been asked and answered. Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean you can distort reality. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 00:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither of you understand the purpose of a COI declaration, which is to inform readers that the person commenting is not distinterested. Works that way throughout the known universe; very basic stuff. Not witch-hunting.  And yes the declaration was finally made above, nested in denial but made.  I did already acknowledge that and said thanks for it.   Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We both understand the purpose. What we oppose is the weaponization of a COI declaration which is what you're doing.  If you know he has a COI, or you believe so, his declaration doesn't change it for you.  When you fill up 2/5th of this page with accusations of him having a COI, you've defeated the purpose of a declaration.  The reader now couldn't miss your accusation.  The only thing asking him to do it now serves to do is to create a battleground.  It's disruptive.  Furthermore, Fuzheado is disinterested.  He's not tied to any 3rd party.  He was at this conference as a Wikipedian.  He doesn't have a COI.  Your misunderstanding of what constitutes a conflict of interests is the issue here.  That you've refused to even entertain the idea that you're wrong about Fuzheado is why this page grew 40% larger than the MfD discussion itself.  Please do not do this in future discussions.--v/r - TP 16:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, and I am not responding further here - feel free to have the proverbial last word. Jytdog (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * His name has been listed on that page as a participant for years for anyone to see. He disclosed his involvement years ago.  You already know what you need to know, so drop the stick already.  Let it go.  Move on.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I have to tell you in all candor, and it embarrasses me to say it, I didn't notice it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am thinking about this. Project namespace has a lot of various kinds of things in it.  See for example Wikimedia Foundation statement on paid editing and outing.  I agree that this being an "essay" is not really appropriate but that is what the WMF "statement" is as well.   One thing I have considering for a while, is whether there should be a WP:Wikiproject Paid Editing or the like (the name would be one of the hardest things) -- a sort of guild of paid editors within WP that would actually a) create and maintain best practices consistent with the policies and guidelines (per this statement); b) help educate new PR people who show up so we wouldn't have to spend so much time doing that;  and c) of course be careful as hell to avoid becoming a lobbying group itself and to avoid doing bad things like peer reviewing each other's's proposed articles and content.   So I would almost want to see this moved to a new WikiProject.  I wasn't really ready to propose that yet, but this seems as good a time and place as any.   So keep for now until we figure out what is most appropriate.  Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * When I made my comment above, I had been thinking about that same WMF statement. My own take on it is that a statement from WMF is from within the Wikimedia projects, whereas this statement, although presented within the project, is fundamentally different because it really is on behalf of organizations that are separate from the Wikimedia projects. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Crikey, the WMF owns Wikipedia. PR firms don't. Not yet, anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the WMF does not own Wikipedia and has never used any language that resembles this. It calls into question whether you understand the project and community. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 12:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They own the servers and physical plant, such as it is. Why are you being disruptive? Coretheapple (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No disruption here. Just addressing a significant error in characterizing Wikipedia. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad. I hadn't noticed (and you hadn't disclosed) that you have a COI--you signed the statement and are up to your neck in it. No need to explain yourself. Coretheapple (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any idea who Fuzheado is and the level of participation and engagement he has had with Wikimedia? He's literally written the book.--v/r - TP 21:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh no. I could genuinely care less. I believe in commenting on the edit, not the editor. Remember that? Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I must have missed that between all of the accusations of editors having a COI.--v/r - TP 22:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You also may want to take a gander at WP:ABP (note first example). What matters is the content in question and not the qualities of the editors who author it. What bugged me in this situation was not that "evildoers" or "great guys" were involved but that a personal involvement in the content was not disclosed. I wouldn't call it "dangerous" as another editor has said, just irritating. OK? Coretheapple (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It was disclosed, on the project page. You've been asked to drop the stick, please do so.  It hasn't contributed to the conversation.--v/r - TP 22:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I wasn't, that comment was directed by a "keep" !voter to another "keep" !voter. But how about this. How about everybody drop their "sticks," and how about you take that chip off your shoulder, the one evident in your allegation of ulterior motives here? Coretheapple (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I hear you on that Tryptofish. Another example is WP:GLAM which has its way of welcoming other knowledge-generating and curating institutions that are otherwise outside the WMF; another is the entire education program, which of course welcomes schools which are outside the WMF.  Each comes with its own interesting set of COI issues that people are often unwilling to address, but they can create situations that are just as disruptive and thorny as those created by the PR industry.    I know that some folks view the presence of PR people in WP as pollution (and to the extent that they cannot pull their heads out of their own butts and keep writing things like what's wrong with advocating--not COI editing, but advocating--for a client's interest on Wikipedia so long as that relationship is disclosed and takes place in forums where that is acceptable? (diff) and doing (self)-destructive things that anger us more, like the Burger King debacle -- "they" are) but to the extent that this essay is an (I think authentic) effort by some members of the PR industry to really come inside the big WMF tent, they have a place at the table - in other words, they deserve some project space.  What kind of project space, and how that project space is framed and managed does matter, as I noted above.  Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I partly changed my position above. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I love the idea of a WikiProject Paid Editing or a WikiProject COI Editing. Mary Gaulke (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * At this point, we're straying a bit far afield of an MfD discussion, but I like the direction of this thought as well. Maybe not even a whole separate WikiProject, but a counterpart to the WP:COI/Noticeboard: a WP:COI/Help desk. WWB (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * COIN is for editors who have an WP:APPARENTCOI but are not responsive or are denying any COI. The proposed Wikiproject could not be any kind of counterpart to COIN. Jytdog (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure it could. As you note, COI/N is a board subsidiary to WP:COI, to deal with those who seem to not be disclosing their COI or following the rules. There's no reason why a COI/HD could not be a similar board, to assess and respond to requests from those who do. WWB (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Am not taking this further here. Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I too have strong misgivings about using WP space to apparently legitimize commercial editing. But that is something that is a reality and after a great deal of thought I think this editor group should be allowed to discuss their existence here, i.e. keep the statement. This addition helps to show that it has some external note and isn't entirely self-serving. The section "how to join" with off-wiki links, though, seems a bit ... well, not entirely in the Wikipedia spirit. It might be appropriate to trim it back to less promotional tone, and retain some of the group's own statements in something like Wikisource. - Bri (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Leaning delete -- is this page a Wikipedia Project or is this an essay? If it's a project, the extensive "media coverage" section is not appropriate. If it's an essay, then "how to join" sections are not appropriate. If this is a space to house the statement, then I don't see the point. Thus, due to lack of clarity for what the purpose is, I'm voting tentative "delete" for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good points K.e. The whole thing is full of internal contradictions and makes me feel uncomfortable. - Bri (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - the page is neither fish, nor foul. Not an essay, not a Wikiproject. If it was an essay, other editors could edit it freely.  If it was a Wikiproject, other editors could join (perhaps listed as individuals rather than companies), and the project would actually do something that would appear to benefit Wikipedia, rather than just make some PR firms look good.
 * I don't object to this mostly being a stale press release by PR firms. But just pare it down to that and leave it as an essay; or
 * actually do something to benefit Wikipedia, allow non-industry members, and learn our rules, e.g. WP:NOTADVOCATE
 * I'm not surprised by the self-congratulatory press clippings included. I would have doubts that these were real PR people if the clippings weren't included.
 * But I should say something nice about this page. I was invited to participate in the Donovan House meeting and the inviter said something like "this is our chance to have paid and non-paid editors working together for their mutual betterment." Unfortunately, I was not very gracious in my reply which was approx. "I think paid editing is antithetical to Wikipedia's goals. I have no intention of working with PR people who are tearing down Wikipedia and would prefer that they were totally banned from Wikipedia."  The inviter responded "Could you be more specific?"
 * My point is the PR folks often totally miss the point, especially if it goes against their self-interest. And the main point is that Wikipedia is not here to benefit their companies or clients.  We're here to build a NPOV encyclopedia.
 * That said, I was pleasantly surprised when this declaration came out. It moved the paid editing discussion forward (at that time).  Can you figure out a way to make this essay/project move the encyclopedia forward now?
 * If not, then delete.
 * BTW, I invite anybody interested to sign the open letter at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard open letter. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I placed my own comments on that page, as I found part of the "open letter" to not represent what I consider to be a reasonable position. Collect (talk) 13:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If self-identified public relations practitioners sign that letter I think it would be a big step forward. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I considered, but had issues with it, and anyway I think it had been sent before I could weigh in. . WWB (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe it's still gathering sigs. Not too late. Anyway, these kinds of side discussions should not take place here. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Fair comment. Related to Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Essays are not "by the Wikipedia community" but simply, in some reasonable manner, related to Wikipedia. This leaps that bar. Collect (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * By that logic, any external party or parties that have something to say can simply post a "statement" on Wikipedia as long as they have editors on their payroll. Preventing such abuse of Wikipedia space is the whole purpose of WP:NOT. Coretheapple (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice Slippery slope fallacy you have there. Also see Parade of horribles. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a fallacy at all. There is nothing to prevent this same approach by any outside group wanting to throw their weight around Wikipedia as much as the PR profession does. Coretheapple (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is an example of the slippery slope fallacy (you have not established that decisions made at this MfD will somehow force the same decisions to be made at future MfDs for completely different pages), and there certainly is is something to to prevent this same approach by any outside group wanting to throw their weight around Wikipedia. It is called "Miscellany for deletion". You need to argue about whether or not to delete the actual page that was nominated, not some future pages that haven't been written yet. We will MfD those future pages as appropriate when they come, and if they are as bad as you describe, the MfDs will pass. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. These guys have made a public statement of their intention to behave honestly. It should be kept on record. It may be useful. Maproom (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly keep. This isn't just some forum put on by random PR firms and shoehorned onto Wikipedia.  This was an engagement between highly influential Wikipedians and PR firms trying to come to an agreement on how to treat Wikipedia with some level of ethics - led by Wikipedians.  It's relevant to Wikipedia.  I suspect that its nomination is based in the fact that it upsets the narrative that's been spread on Wikipedia_talk:COI.--v/r - TP 22:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, and I advise Tryptofish to carefully read WP:1AM and follow the advice found there. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll follow up on that with you at your user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as honest and open communications should not be deleted out of what could be pique. &rarr; StaniStani 03:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, as open dialog and discussion is what's needed here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. As someone who does a lot of work dealing with COI problems, I don't object to the other side having a position paper on Wikipedia. I don't agree with much of their position, but an essay outside of mainspace is harmless. I have an essay on that myself, at Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagle (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. It's a rational statement endorsed by responsible people. Personally, I would prefer to absolutely ban paid editing, but while it exists we must try to understand it; this is a very helpful statement of an important point of view about it. That I do not share it is relevant: I have much more need to understand those whose POV I do not share, than those I do.   These days, like some of us commenting here, most of my work here is removing material from paid and other promotional editors that does not meet our standards, and it is necessary for us to keep in mind the views of others in order to make the necessary distinctions.  (And it has already proven to be very helpful when dealing with edits by some of the people who endorsed it that may not actually meet our policies.)   DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep on second thoughts; worthwhile as having a record of what the PR community considers a best practice. But remove the press coverage section; anything 3rd party and independent can be used on the CREWE page: Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems useful and worth keeping around. Sam Walton (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.