Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard open letter

Opposed by

 * 1) Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree in part, disagree in part

 * 1) - Noting that BK had a fiasco, but making these "demands" is puerile and not something I would wish to be associated with.  All that is rational is that BK and other companies note that using Wikipedia as part of an advertising campaign is unwise. Collect (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) - I liked the other version. Not much for signing on for 'demands' like these ones. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 3) - I think a "demand" type letter is going to be scoffed at. Unfortunately, not much that we "demand" will have any authority - it would have to come from their good graces, or at least public pressure (money and hurting sales talk - check out United Airlines). I would write an open letter to all companies looking at Wikipedia as free advertising. I work in marketing, and I can't tell you how many times I hear people refer to Wikipedia as "free marketing". This is not the case. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and these companies should be thinking of it as that - it may help with general market awareness, but it should not be used as marketing or promotional material. But what punitive measures do we as a community have to enforce this? Short of individual blocks I'm not sure there is much we can do, with the current state of things. But perhaps an open letter to the public, relating how this may be similar to the "fake news" phenomena (not trying to get too political) - if every company tried something like this we would have quite a problem on our hands. Garchy (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 4) - I was going to add my support to 's comment. I think what Burger King did was really dumb, and I think it's a shame that news reports have focused rather heavily on the Google Home angle, and very little on the Wikipedia angle. Recognizing the dumbness of BK in part, The Verge decided to tweak them. It was dumb, but not done for self-gain in the same way. I also wish there had been a slightly longer comment period, as I believe the letter would have been stronger if focused solely on BK. Anyway, I still think this deserves more attention, so put me down as somewhat supportive. WWB (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but I moved these sections from the open letter page to here. It's very clear that we couldn't do a community-wide RfC on this matter in a short enough time to make any difference, so this just has to be an open letter from those who want to express a consistent opinion on the matter. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. Disappointed that you felt so rushed on this that you sent it with 9 signatories and substantial numbers of Wikipedians asking you to please not. Sam Walton (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It even still has typos in it... "Wikipedia's content is managed by unpaid volunteer supported by Wikimedia Foundation" Sam Walton (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Smallbones can you please let us know why you didn't take into account any of the good faith criticism about your letter? Why did you bother to let editors know you were creating something like this if you weren't going to accept editor feedback? Are the 9 signees of this open letter hoping that the named addressees will respond only to you and not to the community at large? Are you, Smallbones - a completely anonymous volunteer editor, really expecting that Burger King will apologize to specifically to you (and I guess the 8 other signatories)? This does not appear to have been well thought out. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Only those with "consistent opinions" can make their views known? Sorry - I find that a sorry excuse for any "open letter" to anyone. Collect (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Is there a valid rationale for including the supports on the page itself and hiding the opposition on the talk page? This strikes me as misleading at best.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Home invasion
"That campaign strikes us as a form of home invasion". Is this part appropriate? Or maybe it could be reworded. It may perhaps also be misplaced, as it appears before our COI and policy concerns. Thanks, —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 19:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It should be removed, as it's so over-the-top that it reduces our very serious concerns about this ad campaign. If/when this is removed, ping me and I'll add my signature. This is a very serious issue and needs to be nipped in the bud. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation may wish to go after Burger King for violation of our Terms of Use. For once, the people violating the ToU have deep pockets and a lawsuit would likely be both preventative and self-funding. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Have toned it down a bit. I have no problem with organizations using WP within their advertising. My concern is when organizations alter WP text first and than use it in their advertising. The later makes it sound like an independent source is speaking positively about them and is thus misleading. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would be interesting to find out if the Federal Trade Commission would agree this is misleading advertising. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * From my understanding the FTC and FDA have a fairly high bar before they are interested in pursuing misconduct. The fact that this remained in place such a short time, will likely mean they have little interest. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc James that the issue isn't the use of Wikipedia in an advertisement but the altering of the text. However, this high dudgeon demand for an apology makes us look silly. There are serious issues to discuss in regarding shortcoming s in our processes which ought to be addressed, and this open letter was not a good step forward. We ought to be identifying issues and prioritizing them, and it is my strong opinion that getting an apology from Burger King doesn't make the top 10, maybe not the top 25 of issues that deserve attention.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is more about getting details regarding how WP works out to a wider group of people, rather than getting an apology.
 * Agree we need to identify issues and prioritize address them. Were should we start doing this? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

What are the penalties?
An open letter is a positive start (and thank you for drafting it, Smallbones), but I believe more should be done. When a company with a market value of over $6 billion abuses Wikipedia for promotional purposes, I think we need to at least consider measures that are more drastic than a slap on the wrist. For instance, a notice at the top of Burger King and Whopper explaining that Burger King employees have attempted to influence the articles might just be suitably embarrassing to convince the company this was a bad idea. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I will not and can not support a project that openly considers drastic punishments to single out certain companies to make a point. And what position are we in (a group of anonymous volunteers) to make demands of corporations? For all we know some executives of MacDonald's (or other Burger King competitors) could have been involved in this. Why should we demand Burger King apologize to Wikipedia? What obligation does Burger King have to apologize to Wikipedia? Smallbones' letter documents the vile, heinous lies that were included in our article about their product - I actually think Wikipedia should apologize to Burger King. "We believe that these hidden ads are morally equivalent to stealing from a charity." - sorry, but I don't believe that at all. I think it's actually quite disingenuous to equate such an act to "stealing from a charity." Mr Ernie (talk) 20:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't a drastic punishment. We would be saying "If you break our Terms of Use, then people will find out you broke our Terms of Use." That's not a revolutionary statement. As for "proof" this was Burger King, the ad originated from Burger King and the timing of the promotional edits were shortly before that. That's not coincidence. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then start a proposal on the Village Pump to create a punitive policy for entities violating the Terms of Use. Additionally, User:Smallbones I strongly oppose you sending this open letter as a statement from listed Wikipedia editors to the listed firms and members of the media. Such a statement should be made and organized off-wiki. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really used to these procedures as my account is quite recent. But I wondered about a similar concern: this is an open editor protest letter, intended to be clearly indicated as such?  If so, it may perhaps be appropriate to clearly indicate that this is not the official view of the foundation?  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 21:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm also opposed to sending this letter as it is. When I proposed an open letter I envisaged an educational outreach opportunity, not hostile demands. Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a mock-up of what I'd personally like to see at Burger King and Whopper. It's a derivative of COI. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * We have however fixed the issues. This was their first offense and a fairly minor one in the grand scheme of things. We have many examples that are much worse. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We have the COI tag already. But once the issues are fixed the tag is typically removed. With respect to dealing with the larger issue of paid editing, we IMO would be better serving our readers by working more to address the companies that are involved in paid editing day in and day out (usually with sock puppets) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just don't think that is the responsibility of us as mostly anonymous volunteers. If the WMF wants to move forward with such a strategy then they are certainly welcome to it, and can be the ones that deal with the (potential) fallout. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with Mr. Ernie 100%. They can exact a "penalty" by simply issuing a press release and causing BK to get a public relations hit. Coretheapple (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They only take a PR hit if the everyday consumer decides not to purchase their product based on the WMF's press release. What news source is going to cover such a press release? On the other hand, they certainly would cover that sort of banner on the article. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Much as I admire the spirit of the banner, and would certainly not weep bitter tears were it to be placed on the article, I don't think it's a very good idea. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be completely unethical for a group of editors to band together on Wikipedia / WMF hosted space to attempt a "PR hit." Mr Ernie (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to be completely unethical to me for us to fail to inform our readers that we delivered them promotional material due to outside interference from a multi-billion dollar business. If the result is a PR hit for the company involved, that's something they brought on themselves. ~ Rob 13 Talk 23:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the general sentiment that we need to start being proactive somehow against those who edit with a conflict of interest against our guidelines. Right now there is no real repercussion for doing this kind of thing. All it does it say "hey you got caught so find a sneakier way of inserting your conflict of interest in the future." Jason Quinn (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There aren't repercussions because there is no interest in giving WP:COI teeth. It is a guideline, not a policy, and the TOU is insufficient. That's why situations like this really should be bucked upstairs to the Foundation. Coretheapple (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't pretend as if you speak for everybody. This thread alone shows that some think the WP:COI policy should "have teeth". So when you say there is "no interest" in such a thing to the people who are interested, it's more than just being dishonest, it's insultingly dismissive. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not intending to be dismissive, insultingly or otherwise, or that I'm speaking for "everybody." It's just that for the past few years I've observed how the "community" has no interest in strengthening COI strictures, that there is enormous resistance to the very concept of COI, and that turning that guidelineinto a policy is out of the question. But by all means try to prove me wrong, and I hope you succeed. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

PRCOM
A good place to recommend to Burger King, or any other company after their transgression, is the WP:PRCOM statement that all the major US and international public relations companies have signed onto. It details best practices for communications professionals by pointing to Wikimedia's terms of use and instructs firms to learn the policies of Wikipedia relating to COI and direct editing. Through positive peer pressure, it shows a firm is engaging in deviant behavior as their respected peers are abiding by Wikipedia's principles. The page provides a list of resources for how to ethically engage with Wikipedia's community. The public shaming of the company on a large scale seems misguided, given that the most prominent space on Wikipedia's front page says, "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," and clicking on "anyone can edit" brings you to a page where the first prominent bold instruction is, "Don't be afraid to edit." It is not simple or straightforward to find our COI guidelines for a new editor or for a communications professional. Make no mistake – It was a completely inappropriate action by Burger King. But it shouldn't give us free license to be cruel and vindictive. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 14:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So draft a letter doing that, get people to sign it and send it off. By the way I'm not clear as to whether this letter was actually sent, and if so what the mode of transmission was or will be. I see something to the effect it was supposed to go out yesterday. Coretheapple (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * One of the issues I have with establishing penalties for something like this is there's really no way to verify who was behind the edits. Suppose I work for Wendy's but go create an account named McDonalds PR Group and go around inserting promotional material into the Big Mac article. Or I name an account after a McDonald's executive and do the same things. We have no way to prove that the 2 accounts used to insert promotional material actually were tied to Burger King. We as editors really have no business conducting such investigations, and it seems like the WMF has no interest in doing it either. Additionally, where is the discussion about the appropriateness of a Google device taking advantage of Wikipedia editors' time and labor to create content? Mr Ernie (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that it may be problematic (Google's use of WP), although the license of our material allows this I think. If we had rules preventing them from using APIs automatically, then they also still have access to the content via normal search engine page indexing.  This seems to be a complex issue.  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 18:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Using APIs automatically helps our content get out there. One of the costs of being incredible open is misuse. The harms from being less open is greater than the harms from misuse.
 * I have always seen "Don't be afraid to edit" as applying to good faith rather than bad faith editors. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support for Fuzheado's excellent suggestion Let's work on solutions, rather than dreaming up ex post facto punishments.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand the use of the words "cruel and vindictive" and "punishments." We've named Burger King and called them out on unacceptable behavior. Is it cruel and vindictive to state the simple truth when somebody's made a mistake?  We've also let many people know about what our rules are.  One of the excuses I've commonly seen is "I didn't know what the rules are."  Now they do.  I'll quote something I just ran into.  Jimbo's perhaps a bit stronger on this than I am:

"I think it is perfectly appropriate for members of the general public, including active Wikipedians, to contact companies who are funding inappropriate behavior at Wikipedia to let them know that it is not appreciated. I think such activity can and should result in public scandal for the perpetrators... we have the power to do something about this, so there is no need to despair. - Jimmy Wales, 5 January 2012


 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I trust that all active editors are aware that we have a serious COI problem. We should not jump to the conclusion that because we are aware of it, the general public is aware of it.

I understand the need for a motto to be succinct, but imagine a member of the general public who knew almost nothing about Wikipedia and came to the main page Main_Page

What's the first thing they see?

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

It doesn't say, "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit unless you have a conflict of interest". I'm not proposing that we modify our motto. If you click on the words "anyone can edit" You are brought to the introduction page. As Fuzheado pointed out, it says in bold "don't be afraid to edit". It says anyone (with emphasis) can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold. And that's in bold.

A reasonable person might reach the conclusion that anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, should not be afraid of editing and should actually be bold.

Is there a single hint on the opening page that there are some restrictions?

Why on earth should we expect the public to know about this restriction? It is critically important to us but we don't make an effort to share it with the public.

I spend a fair amount of my day fielding questions from the public at OTRS. Not a day goes by that I don't have to tell multiple people about our conflict of interest guidelines. It is common enough that I've created some boilerplate to tell them how to edit if they have a COI.

In very rare cases someone will write in a way that you you know that they know there is a COI but this is the exception rather than the rule.

I am not challenging that addressing COI is critically important, but when the evidence suggests that it is so little-known and we do such a passport job of informing the public about the importance, I think it is "cruel and vindictive" to publicly shame someone who may not have known the rules.

Let's clean up our own house first.

I'm not in disagreement with Jimbo's quote. I fully support measures to do a better job of informing companies that violation of COI is not "appreciated". My only departure from full agreement with his statement is that I think we need to do a better job of informing the public before I would support "public scandal for the perpetrators". -- S Philbrick (Talk)  00:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need some group of editors who would be interested in writing well thought out and widely agreed upon content like this in the future. A communications team of English Wikipedia editors who could work separately or alongside the WMF communications team on letters like this, press releases for interesting goings on here, etc. In this way we would avoid rushed letters like this one that didn't have time to properly reflect the community's views, and they could also be go-to editors for the WMF to contact if they need input on something communications related. Thoughts? Sam Walton (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Wording
I have summarized the letter a fair bit. User:Smallbones let me know your thoughts?

We have also connected User:Fermachado123 to Fernando Machado. Wondering peoples thoughts on the permissibility of that? IMO it is reasonable as others have published such a connection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As the resident anti-outing fanatic, even I believe that such a connection can be publicly discussed after it is the subject of coverage in multiple reliable sources. At that point, nothing we say is going to cause more damage. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent to hear that you take such a position as it is one I also support. We should look at adding this clarification to the appropriate policies. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the changes. I may be more outraged than most Wikipedians at Burger King's actions, but it is important that we reflect the opinions of more than just 1 editor!. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 23:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Would prefer "asks" to "demands". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Web citations
If this is a letter, which may potentially be printed, it may possibly be nice for footnote URLs to also be part of the text? —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 21:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Another version
See Conflict of interest/Burger King open letter and of course Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Burger King open letter. (And there's no reason not to sign both versions if you are so inclined.) Andrewa (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Smallbones and User:Andrewa please make it clear in both versions that Wikipedia users vandalized the Burger King page, inserting material that breaks the core policies of the project. Please also include an apology to Burger King for these actions. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not needed. It was rapidly dealt with and the users who did it warned. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And the users who broke the promotional edit policy were outed and banned. And regardless of how long it lasted, there was a period of time that users could go to the Whopper page and read that "rat meat and toenail clippings" were ingredients in the Whopper. I think someone should propose a BLB policy to ensure no harm is done to burgers. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Outed" by the press yes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

BLB
From above Please also include an apology to Burger King for these actions.

Perhaps this is serious, perhaps subtle humour. BLB (I assume biographies of living burgers)? (->

If serious I think that such an apology is inappropriate and a precedent not to be taken lightly. Wikipedia is very now. My year 2 class already learn critical reading, and Wikipedia offers tools (page histories and article talk pages and others) that greatly facilitate critical reading.

As a result, misinformation published in Wikipedia is a lot less damaging than that published almost anywhere else. Our main problem is when these other sources let us down... a classic case being the controversy that now surrounds the date of George Hickey's death. The newspaper that published the inaccurate date appears to have obtained the information from a vandalised Wikipedia page that they did not check, but the resulting article now qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia!

Very interesting thought, though. Others? Andrewa (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * PS and the newspaper did not cite its source so we will never really know... but the story did appear in the few days that our article carried the unsourced (and I believe inaccurate) date, and the many other sources that now also state this date were all written subsequently to this newspaper article. And I don't know how to fix it now, I have tried. And Hickey's friends and relatives understandably do not welcome publicity. Andrewa (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

BLT
for Biography of Living Tomatoes

Note that this would be violated by Burger King's edit that the Whopper is "topped with daily sliced tomatoes and onions" Slicing those poor tomatoes *every day*! :-) Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The Foundation's role
I'm very glad that editors are addressing this atrocity, but I would like to see Jimbo and the Foundation expend energy on this. If they don't, why should we? Coretheapple (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree the foundation should take more of a role in addressing issues around undisclosed paid editing generally. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt the indignant route is the right way to go
Did they violate our rules? Sure. But they're not trying to be accepted as long-term editors here - they just want the publicity. It was funny and they got away with it.

Honestly, I think that vandalism has some redeeming qualities. Oh, sure, we have to control it, clean it up, keep it in check... but vandalism reminds us that this is just an encyclopedia written by a bunch of people, an honest effort but not an infallible one. Vandalism is like finding a dead bug floating in a pitcher of water that needs to be boiled before you drink it -- the dead bug you see can save you from the microscopic germs you might catch with an unguarded swallow.

The people who can make a difference here are the ones with a motive: Google, which wants to use our material for their business. They have a right to do that, but they should note that it is not for nothing that we give them the right to copy our content for commercial use. The best vandal I heard of came up with "rat meat and toenail clippings", but someone might just as easily have written "the pus that drips from the rape-ravaged orifices of the desperate illegal migrants without health insurance slaving away on their corporate assembly line." I mean, Wikipedia is not actually made or certifiable as a "safe" family entertainment for those easily shocked (and as I phrased in my example, I doubt any simple-minded electronic 'filter' can do so), and so Google has to either mentally prepare its customers to be shocked or else compile its own list of "reliable" recent revisions. Personally, I opt for the former - this is supposed to be a free society - but mostly I want to avoid the altogether impermissible third option where they start coming here and lobbying for us to twiddle our articles and install overbearing mechanisms to make them safer for Google to make money off of. Wikipedia is a factory floor to produce the content - a bad revision doesn't really matter much because the point of revisions is ultimately to get to the better one that will follow tomorrow and next week and next year. We're not a boutique - we need space and freedom to work. And so I don't resent these tame vandals that remind the world that people here actually do have that space; nor do I even particularly resent Burger King for bringing paid editing into clearer focus here (I mean, even clearer than all the video game ads on the Main Page all the time, because the stonewalling there never shows a crevice of admission) - in both cases I don't resent them, but that doesn't mean I won't revert them. Wnt (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Wnt. I view this open letter as a mechanism to educate people about our policies around paid editing. I am not expecting a response from BK.
 * Their actions and those of Vox do clearly display our weaknesses to the reading public. WP only gets better when the efforts of good faith editors surpass those trying to misuse the site. Our readers need to use common sense. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Part of this common sense, in that editors should expect that vandalism will be reverted and future revisions improved, should also include the understanding that there are ventures that will seek to use Wikipedia's popularity for their own benefit. I view vandalism and promotional editing through the same lens; they are both policy violations. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Responses
Would be good if editors could list responses here. I found this article by The Consumerist. Additionally User:Smallbones please list here for transparency to which media companies you sent this letter. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Two more are here and . Mr Ernie (talk) 18:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The results are much better than I expected. I still have misgivings about doing this kind of thing when the Foundation and Jimbo sit on their hands, but this shows them how a little pushback goes a long way. Coretheapple (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note the Foundation response inserted in the Ad Age article. I hadn't noticed it in my initial skim. Weak, mealy-mouthed, equivocal. Honestly, while I support this kind of initiative, what it says to me is that the Foundation basically does not give a f--k about this problem, and that we volunteers should not wear ourselves out fighting their battles for them. And when I say "wear ourselves out" I mean that literally. Recently one editor I admire had serious real-life issues exacerbated to lethal ends by what happens here. That is a wake-up call for us all.  Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think if we were able to articulate what we wanted done and how the WMF could help us with that, they would. I send urls of sites that are infringing upon our trademarks to legal on a fairly regular basis. And they frequently hand them. The difficulty is that we have trouble developing consensus ourselves. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

full list please update
Likely a few others will dribble in, but I'll leave it here unless something truly exciting appears. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Advertising Age
 * Marketing Dive
 * Campaign
 * reprinted by PRWeek
 * Consumerist
 * Grub Street, and
 * Eater, a sister publication of The Verge
 * The Daily Meal
 * Fox News, some material from "Associated Press" - some slight inaccuracies.
 * Food & Wine
 * NASDAQ

Should we do this on a regular basis?
With 10+ media outlets covering this and putting our rules in plain sight for marketing, food, and financial people to read, I think we've accomplished a fair amount here. Though Burger King made themselves thoroughly ridiculous in their stunt, they are not the only company that has reliable sources report that they've done things against our rules. I'd guess something like this, reported in the press, or a news story that encourages people to break our rules, comes around about once a month. While this can be discouraging, we can best view it as an opportunity to let people know our rules on UPE, COI editng etc. Relying on stories in the press gets rid of the problem "How do you really know that Burger King inserted that text?" Well, if you look at what was done to the article and also look at the ad, you know who did it. But if that doesn't satisfy you - it's in reliable sources.

My idea is to form a WikiProject, perhaps a sub-project of WP:INTEGRITY. Folks who want to let the press and the public know our rules could keep an eye out for stories that identify people breaking our UPE and COI rules. They could then check to see if what's in the story matches the edit history on Wikipedia, write a response to the press, inform WMF Communications to see whether they want to handle it, wait a day for folks to comment, and then send it off to the company and press.

Obviously a lot needs to be worked out, but it would fill a gaping hole on Wikipedia. Nobody else is informing people about our rules on UPE and COI.

Any input welcome.

Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the idea, but I started checking if we had something similar (names and shortcuts). I found WP:PRESS but that's about coverage of Wikipedia in the press (which might need to be updated with your above links).  We also have WP:ADVOCACY but that's about detecting and preventing it.  WP:PR is peer-review (not public relations), and WP:Publicising_discussions is for internal discussions.  If your idea works, it may also be important to properly specify in which cases it is appropriate or not, to avoid general outing campaigns or a high frequency of mundane letter releases causing the targets to eventually ignore or minimize the events, etc.  Perhaps that it would have to first pass through arbitration first (assuming that only high enough profile cases are discussed there in the first place)?  Or maybe another similar less official (or busy) vetting process...  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 02:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The first vetting process should be in a discussion like this of course. There's something like WP:WikiProjects that might have a say if it can become a project, but I'd guess if enough people are interested in it they'd agree. There was something like WP:Community spokesperson before WMF had a Communications Dept. (10 years ago?) Somehow I can't imagine ArbCom vetting individual cases. Actually any usual Wikiprocess I know of seems to take at least a week.  Because of the fast newscycle we'd need a turnover here of a day or two, at most a weekend.  Nobody reads old news.
 * Probably the most important question is what cases to take.
 * 1st and most important would be that the story has received attention in the press (reliable sources). That would mean that we couldn't be making up the situation - i.e. ensure that it's not fake news
 * 2nd I'd say concentrate on corporations. Joe's Coffee Shop might flagrantly violate our rules, but outside Wikipedia nobody would care and it would look like we're picking on the little guys (and leaving big corps alone because ...)
 * 3rd for much the same reason, I'd stay away from most BLPs. However, one case from about a month ago comes to mind.  A candidate for Virginia governor told CNN that his campaign edited his article to remove "falsehoods".  Political campaigns should probably be fair game.
 * After that, I'd think it would be whatever the members of the project considered appropriate - and maybe work out some more general guidelines, rather than hard-and-fast rules.
 * There should also be some protections against involved editors (e.g. those working for competitors) bringing in or writing up cases.
 * It's all up for discussion though. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm this event started April 4, following up on the 11th, but this letter went out the 18th, and seems to have had some coverage (no idea if it had any impact, however). A number of editors could only sign after the deadline.  Your criteria list seems plausible to me to prevent abuse.  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 03:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 1st published on April 12. The follow up from other sources was very late April 12 and then Easter Weekend got in the way. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Does this type of event occur frequently enough? I can think of various cases mentioned at reliability of Wikipedia (some of which may also not comply to the above criteria).  Maybe there's a better source somewhere.  I've not looked at the WP:PRESS data yet, I only discovered about it today.  —░] PaleoNeonate █ ⏎ ? ERROR ░ 03:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just do a google news search for Wikipedia. There are 2 obvious candidates in the last month.  The Virginia goobernatorial candidate was on March 23 and I think that would qualify under the above rules (maybe borderline).  There was also a presidential advisor on April 4 with about 7 articles - I'm thinking this is just below the line.  He didn't admit anything about editing his or his wife's article, but the 2-3 reliable sources seem convinced it was him. I remember another but couldn't find it - a minor TV personality complaining that we got "his" article all wrong and whenever he sends somebody to fix it, they get reverted.  That one might qualify for a short note rather than anything very big.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the Project idea may be worth trying, but also it may simply be best for editors to engage in ad hoc efforts such as this. Your letter was effective (far more effective than I expected!) principally because you behaved boldly, you drafted it, got some input, got signatures, and sent it out. Had you waited for consensus we'd still be yammering about it and meanwhile, judging from the discussion, the letter would have been watered down and rendered useless. The more a bureaucratic process is deployed, the less likely it will be that it will actually do anything. Coretheapple (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this worked out well so far, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do it again. Endercase (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

We are put together a movement statement on another topic here here I think having published positions by the communities are important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)