Talk:Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Marketing & Advertising (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

New name of company[edit]

This article is about this company's activities primarily when it was operating under the name "Wiki-PR". While the Wiki-PR web site is still active, the company is operating under a new name. This begs the question: Should the infobox reflect the company as it was in 2013, or as the company is now? I've WP:BOLDly made some updates to show its current status. Please don't revert unless you are also willing to discuss (WP:BRD). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Since there is so little consensus about what this article is even about and so little participation on the discussion of what the focus of this article should be, I don't think there is any reasonable way to say one way or the other to answer your question in an intelligent manner. Keep in mind that this article was started titled simply Wiki-PR, but was then subsequently renamed. I still think it would be best to make this an article about the company itself.... regardless of what flavor of the month name they happen to call themselves at the moment. Then again any effort I've made to try and make changes to this article has been instantly reverted with article ownership, so I really don't give a damn right now... just hoping that perhaps some people with a stronger stomach than I have will actually bother paying attention. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • How do we know that Status Labs and Wiki-PR are the same? A Signpost contributor says they are, without explaining where that information came from. Both Web sites have a cyan-and-grey colour scheme, are published through the Wordpress software, and are privately registered with Godaddy. Are there any business filings or news stories about the new name? I searched but didn't find them. —rybec 00:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I did find a few Web pages which say Status Labs is in Austin: [1], [2], [3] and [4]. —rybec 05:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I responded there, and no one has responded to my response yet. Therefore I decided to remove it since I looked and looked and couldn't find any remotely reliable source (other than the Signpost) which says this, and the signpost article by The ed17 doesn't cite a reliable source either. Nevertheless, my edit was recently reverted by @Herostratus:, so as per WP:BRD I am coming here. To be clear, I am not sure whether it is actually true that Wiki-PR is now Status Labs. However, I don't think we should be saying that it is if the only line of evidence backing this up is something posted on Wikipedia's newsletter, which I don't consider to be reliable and which doesn't seem to have gotten much coverage in independent sources. Herostratus also contended in his edit summary that the Signpost is exempt from WP:WINARS because it isn't actually a Wikipedia article (though his ES got cut off so Im not totally sure). However, it is still written by anonymous people just the same way as anything else on Wikipedia. Jinkinson talk to me 02:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Right, OK, I asssumed that this was a case of "here's some info which is almost certainly true, but it's ref'd to an unreliable source so I'll remove it" which you do see from time to time, but IMO the correct step is to tag it for {{better source}} or whatever and wait a while, at least. However, I see that this is matter of info that is contested and which might not be true, so removing it might be in order, so I reversed myself and restored Jinkinson's edit.
As to Signpost, it's a better source than just a Wikipedia article. Unlike a Wikipedia article, it's not written by just anyone (I assume there's some kind of bar to cross to get an article in Signpost) and isn't subject to change at any time, and there may be some kind of minimal editorial oversight in the sense that a person(s) reads Signpost articles before they are published and could maybe flag egregious errors. So it's definitely a better source than a Wikipedia article and I guess better than some individual person's Wordpress blog (depending on who the person is and other factors), although maybe not a lot better (don't know). I've used worse sources, but not for contended and contentious material. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me that Status Labs is the new incarnation of Wiki-PR based on a job interview I recently had with Jordan French. Not fully aware of the Wiki-PR controversy, I interviewed for a PR position with French in their very scruffy office in east Austin. Darius Fisher was "supposed" to be in the interview but according to French, Fisher was in Dubai. As the interview progressed it was apparent that Status Labs is producing and/or editing Wikipedia pages, among other services for clients. Turned out the interview was bogus and instead French was on a fishing expedition for names of potential clients, even asking me who I knew that had a reputation or perception problem. He was rather persistent on this topic and happily filled me in on their referral program, which I believe they refer to as an affiliate program. I was pissed this was not a real job opportunity, did further research on the firm and became aware of the Wiki editing controversy. In my opinion, French and Fisher simply changed the business name and continue their dubious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.13.80.131 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

recent IP edits[edit]

Though I'm normally loathe to make significant changes to this page, I've reverted the recent IP changes in favor of the last (kind of) stable version. Some of the changes appear to be rather transparent attempts at performing reverse SEO (removing info about the ban from the lede, removing client info, etc,) and in doing so also introduced terribly awkward prose. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

questionable move[edit]

I'm pretty significantly confused by the recent move by User:Timtempleton claiming that consensus supports the action and that he took it because RM is backlogged. Although there appears to be a decent amount of agreement that the previous name was not appropriate, the previous RM explicitly closed as a failure. I'm not reverting it myself at the moment but it seems extremely questionable and is certainly irregular to move an article without even a talk page comment in a way that contradicts consensus in the previous move request. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@Timtempleton, Kevin Gorman: In light of the November 2013 discussion that said "don't move" and in light of both Kevin's concerns and my similar concerns, I agree that this move is "controversial" and should not be done without a fresh discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Where do you see questionable consensus @Kevin Gorman, Davidwr:? I saw a long chain of comments in the talk section supporting that this article be based on the company name, rather than the reason for their notoriety. That info is already in the article and is easy for anyone to read. I wouldn't expect we'd change the Google article title circa 2003 to Google the search engine company. I also see other articles such as WikiExperts that are standalone articles for companies not only notable for one thing only, but for the exact thing as Wiki-PR. Sure, you can claim WP:OSE but we also strive for consistency. The only time I can remember seeing an article on an aspect of a company separate from the company article is with landmark court cases notable in their own way, and even then the company has its own article without the name of the court case in the title. If you can make a compelling case that this article shouldn't follow the format of almost every other company article, I'll be the first to jump ship and support a revert. Heck - I'll even do it myself. Perhaps as a compromise we create an article Wikipedia editing scandals and put in those two companies, along with other entries such as Robert_Clark_Young#Wikipedia_editing_controversy but leave their main articles with just the name?Timtempleton (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - should have included the talk link that I was referring to Talk:Wiki-PR_editing_of_Wikipedia#Move_to_Wiki-PR_editing_of_WikipediaTimtempleton (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
That discussion was superceded by the later discussion #Requested move above. The result of that discussion was "not moved." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for showing me that link. After reading it, I can see why there was such a lengthy debate on this. I wish I had known to contribute while the discussion was going on. Here's how my thinking is going now. Please bear with me. No wallflowers here. :-) 1) The fact that we are all Wikipedia editors and some of the posts discussed the inherent conflict of interest shows how tricky this can be. Ultimately, though, if Wikipedia editors were not allowed to write about Wikipedia, there'd be very little content about Wikipedia, so that's a non-issue. 2) Because there was press coverage in mainstream media, the subject and the company are both notable. This is not just a big deal to Wikipedians, any more than a Facebook data breach should only matter to Facebook users. I just can't see consistency in having an article about a significant event without also having an article about the company, and there's no precedent to take the company article and name it to make it singularly focused on one item. The posts you showed me used numerous examples of how it would mess up the title naming consistency to do so with other companies, examples that I won't repeat here. Another consideration - who's to say the company doesn't do something else down the road - offer its services to Universities, for example? Did you see the recent Harvard news on Mashable about their editor-in-residence hire? Who gets to decide then whether it's time to change the company article name back to normal? Another example - does every new article about a new author have to have their only book name in the title? Do they get just their name as their article title only once they've written two books? This could get messy. The simplest thing is to have all article titles clean and generic - the way they should be from the start. The fact that this is a subject close to home for all of us shouldn't change the rules. That bias is more worrisome to me than the conflict of interest mentioned in 1) above. 3) I didn't realize that my idea about creating a Wikipedia editing controversy article was an old one, but there's already a list. This is where all the controversies should be further noted - not in the titles of company articles. The articles for every company and person involved in a Wikipedia controversy should have a note in the See also section, for further reading. 4) Finally, since I did move the article in apparent contradiction to the previous consensus that I was unaware of, in the spirit of collaboration I will be willing to move it back if nobody else is in agreement with me. I just can't see how treating this one article differently than all the others is anything but topic bias. Thanks for not reverting - let's see where this goes.Timtempleton (talk) 22:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
To answer your question "Who gets to decide then whether it's time to change the company article name back to normal?" - we do. Because the most recent discussion was relatively recent, the normal WP:Bold, revert, discuss method of doing things really should be just "discuss" then go with the current consensus. If the last discussion had been long ago, then a bold move by someone aware of the past discussion would not necessarily be out of line. By the way, I reverted your move at 17:06 27 March 2014 (UTC), less than 2 hours after you moved it (see the page history for details). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
OK - I'll go with the flow, since an incorrect, narrow consensus is still a consensus, per the site's self-policing guidelines. But I want to go on record here as one of many voices noting that the article title is a aberration on the site. The only logical explanation for the support for the unconventional title is misguided outrage at the company - a digital scarlet letter.Timtempleton (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
A great new test case opportunity came up which will either add or take away momentum for naming company articles based on notoriety from a single controversial event. Will a Wikipedia article be created for the otherwise not yet notable HiringSolved called HirigSolved mining of Linkedin? For background, see LinkedIn names company that used bots to steal profiles for competing Recruiter service Timtempleton (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Any test case for a hypothetical Wikipedia article where you link something on gigaom is almost definitely a bad test case. I'd also like to point out that the fact that one might disagree with a consensus doesn't really make it incorrect. Without having clicked through to the story you linked, if it got massive mainstream coverage focused on the controversy, I can see a title focused on the controversy as being appropriate, but that hasn't happeed yet, and theoretical WP:OSE is an even worse argument than actual WP:OSE. BTW: we already named articles directedly connected to people with the names of controversies rather than the names of the people themselves only. To pick a totally arbitrary example, Murder_of_Milly_Dowler is named Murder_of_Milly_Dowler, not Mily Dowler. If the controversy is what is notable, that's what the article should be titled after. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no consensus for this move, which must be reverted. The only consensus reached here was specifically against moving. Fiddle Faddle 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have been overtaken by events. I see it has been reverted already. Fiddle Faddle 23:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)