Talk:DCI Group

Removed Dcigroupdigital.com

We have removed the additional link associated (dcigroupdigital.com). It is no longer active and the current link was directing to a spam page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.16.172 (talk) 16:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Seeking a new, better article

This is a badly neglected Wikipedia article. It has not been edited in nearly three years, fewer than 100 edits have been made in the six years since its creation, and I even had to create this discussion page merely to post this message. I'm interested in fixing up this article for the simple reason that I work with DCI Group. With the goal of being as effective as possible in doing so and following Wikipedia's suggestions for COI compliance, I've created this account to raise this issue, share my own suggested version, and assist in this process. To see my version, which is now ready, please see here: User:Willemite/DCI Group.

There are many problems with the current version, which I will try to explain without being too verbose. Currently the "Personnel" section takes up just less than half of the article, with a heavy focus on previous roles held by the company's leadership, rather than current roles and responsibilities. The section is almost entirely unsourced, except for a mention of a criminal trial involving the actions of someone who was not then—and in fact never was—a DCI Group employee. The version I suggest keeps the basic information about the company's leadership, but balances it a bit more with information besides their past campaign work.

Next is the "Controversies" section which fills most of the rest of the article, putting what I think is an undue focus on two events: one, a past client involvement with Myanmar, and a short-lived story from summer 2006 about an Internet web video, in which DCI was mentioned as a possible source. Both of these remain in the article, as I recognize there is third-party coverage sufficient to include them, although I've sought to put them into some context. The Myanmar representation information is now under "Government affairs" with similar client work and the web video controversy is discussed in context of DCI Digital, the firm's online communications team.

Beyond that, the "Clients" section is just a list of names without context, so I've tried to improve that. I have written in "encyclopedic" style to the best of my ability, following Wikipedia is not a soapbox as close as I can, especially to avoid self-promotion or advertising. For that reason, I have only included initiatives and clients supported by reliable, third-party references.

To anyone who wishes to help, please review my draft and let me know if you would agree to using some or all of it in the Wikipedia article. If there is no reply here soon (I hope not, but seems possible) then I will seek help elsewhere on the site.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that your proposed version is an improvement, but I'm not entirely sure it is 100% neutral. I think the secret hiring of DCI by Freddie Mac should also be mentioned in the lobbying section (sources: [1] [2] [3]). The quote from Goodman here about recent lobbying could also be included. Regarding the awards section - we generally only include awards if there has been 2ndry coverage of the award - there are so many awards out there that this is necessary to ensure that only notable awards are mentioned (I know there are many articles where this is not followed but we'll fix that one day!) One other thing I don't have time to fully investigate now is about Tech Central Station which appears to have been rather more controversial than the draft lets on - e.g.. If you can update the draft to address these points, I will try and take a look again and hopefully move it over the curent article when it is ready. SmartSE (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a close look at this, SmartSE. I'm glad you agree this is an improvement, and I'll try a second draft based on your suggestions. It might take a few days to do that, so I hope you can give it a second look once I've done so. Thanks again, and I'll be in touch.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, SmartSE. It took me a bit longer than I hoped to follow up your suggestions and make some changes to the User:Willemite/DCI_Group draft, but I have now. Here is a summary of what has changed:

• Regarding TCS, the Washington Monthly did write a critical story in 2003 pointing out that its funding then came largely from DCI clients. So I have added this to that section: In its original incarnation, TCS was primarily funded by sponsors, including some DCI clients, a fact reported in the Washington Monthly.

• In the situation with Freddie Mac, there certainly was unfavorable reporting, although it clearly focused on Freddie as opposed to DCI. And as DCI stated publicly at the time, such as in this AP/MSNBC[4] story (now in my draft) DCI complied with all relevant laws. But I see the point in mentioning it, so this now is in the draft: In 2008 it was reported that the company had done extensive work for Freddie Mac, running a multi-state grassroots effort against Republican Senator Chuck Hagel's bill to tightly regulate the company. Freddie Mac acknowledged the hire, and DCI stated it had complied with "all applicable federal and state laws and regulations".

• About the Doug Goodyear quote from the NY Times[5] article you cited, I looked at it, and it doesn't speak to anything about DCI. He is simply quoted about the Obama administration, so I didn't add anything. Feel free to review for yourself.

• I'm OK with the link back to the Al Gore's Penguin Army video, and with the addition of the link to the NH phone jamming article, though I made two small changes to the latter. First I reduced the anchor text in that link, and second I changed the phrasing from Tobin and LaCivita being involved in it to say they were publicly linked to it. No question there is reporting about their alleged involvement, but Tobin's conviction was reversed on appeal, and LaCivita was never charged. I also formatted the Union Leader reference and removed the dead link, but the citation itself remains.

• About the awards, I had chosen ones that I thought were important, and certainly I was mindful of not overdoing it. On further review, I think mentioning the Hermes Creative Award by itself, since it is the one with the least secondary coverage, was perhaps one too many. But I'd like to make the case for the others. Actually, one Hermes award was for The Stafford Foundation's People's Inaugural Project, which itself received news coverage[6] so I think it's a reasonable inclusion. Meanwhile, the two other awards are annual awards given out by PR Week (also for the Stafford Foundation project) and Campaigns & Elections, both key trade publications in public relations and U.S. politics, specifically. For this reason they also seem appropriate to me.

Please have a look and if you think these are fine, go ahead and move the article into place. If you think needs some adjustments, I'd like to invite you to make any tweaks as necessary before moving it. I'm looking forward to your response.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and moved the draft live. I don't think it is perfect but it is a vast improvement on the previous version and I'll try to get round to working on it myself sometime. Thanks for disclosing your COI. SmartSE (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, looks great. I have made a few additional edits, minor fixes and enabling categories. I'm also going to fair-use the firm's logo shortly, and that should be all for now. Your thoughtful assistance has been very welcome, and I appreciate it.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And I realized later there was one more important thing missing: I had left out Justin Peterson, the fifth of five managing directors. I've prepared two short sentences similar to the others, and that is here. The best place for this, in my estimation, is directly following the similar material on Brian McCabe. While assuredly uncontroversial and well-sourced, to be on the safe side I would like to allow 24 hours for comment before I make a direct edit. Or, if you see this before and agree, feel free.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine. Put it in. SmartSE (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've added it just now. Willemite (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Grassroots" is a POV term in this article

This article mentions the word "grassroots" in just about every paragraph, which in our definition means

driven by the politics of a community (...) implies that the creation of the movement and the group supporting it are natural and spontaneous, highlighting the differences between this and a movement that is orchestrated by traditional power structures.

That seems completely contradictory with the content of this page and the clients/work of this company [7] [8]. I think astroturfing is a more appropriate term. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Whilst I personally agree that grassroots = astroturfing, we need to follow what the sources state. From the few I have checked just now, they call DCI a grassroots firm, not an astroturfing firm. If there are more sources out there calling them an astroturfing firm then we should incorporate them, but it's more POV for us to decide it is astroturfing than for them to call themselves grassroots. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's equally POV to follow their terminology, certainly when describing a company that exists to sell spin. The problem with this kind of thing is that you usually only find such terms in NGO and advocacy websites, which I try to avoid as sources in favor of news media and academic publications so as not to get "some say, others say"-style articles. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that it's not us that should decide, we should just follow the sources. Here are some more supportive of your wording: [9] [10] - as you point out they're not the best. The NYT very briefly calls them 'known for creating grass-roots fronts' in an infographic but wasn't explicit in the main article. It's a tricky one. SmartSE (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Creating grassroots fronts for corporate campaigns" is the very definition of astroturfing; I'd consider that explicit enough to warrant a link to that article, with the NYT quote as the anchortext and no mention of the actual word. Would you agree? (This is the current situation in the article: the first mention of grassroots is linked, but without a source I think it could be considered OR or POV.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying 'til now - saw your edit and I agree that that is a good compromise. SmartSE (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting discussion of changes

Almost exactly two years ago I worked with an editor on this discussion page to improve and expand this article. As the first message above explains, I work with DCI Group so I am looking only to assist in this process, not make any changes myself. Unlike last time, when I was looking to overhaul the article, I only have a couple of small suggestions to present.

The first one, which I see has been discussed by a few other editors directly above, is about the use of the phrase "the creation of grass-roots fronts for corporate campaigns" in the introduction. I'm not objecting to this information being included, but as this is language is a direct quote from a specific source, I would like to ask that quotation marks be added to the phrase. I also would suggest updating the reference template so that it directs to the chart that the quote is pulled from, not the article where the chart appears only as a hard-to-read thumbnail.

Here is how I suggest the sentence and reference template be altered:

Services include communication campaigns to solicit public action on legislative issues, the creation of "grass-roots fronts for corporate campaigns",<ref name="teaparty">{{cite news ||title=A Hidden Lobby For Indonesian Paper? |url=http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/03/29/us/liberty-graphic.html?ref=politics |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] |date=29 March 2011}}</ref> and campaigns for clients on social media websites.

The next update is for the ""Grassroots" communications" section. The final paragraph here is a concern as the sentence regarding the European Privacy Association does not accurately reflect the information in the source cited. Specifically, the sentence draws a conclusion about the relationship between DCI Group and the EPA that is not expressed in the source. I conducted a Google search on this and have not found significant, meaningful coverage of DCI Group's relationship with the EPA. My inclination is to ask that this sentence be removed, since it does not provide the reader with accurate or encyclopedic information about DCI Group, however I understand that others may have a different view.

If it is decided that this information should remain, I'd like to ask that it be revised slightly to match the language used in the source. The last portion of this sentence, about the EPA's relationship with Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, should be removed as it is about the EPA, not DCI Group. The reference template is also missing the link to the article, so that should be added in. Additionally, you'll see that I have removed the quotation marks from either side of European Privacy Association, this is the name of the organization, not a quote, so I do not believe that quotation marks are needed here.

Again, here is how I suggest the sentence and reference template be altered:

According to Corporate Europe Observatory, DCI Group has a "close relationship" with the European Privacy Association, an EU lobby group.<ref name="epa">{{cite web |title=Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo are secret backers behind European Privacy Association |url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/2039249/google-microsoft-and-yahoo-are-secret-backers-behind-european-privacy-association.html |website=PCWorld |date=20 May 2013 |accessdate=21 May 2013}}</ref>

If you have any thoughts about these changes, please let me know. I would like to ask that, after we reach consensus, another editor make these changes on my behalf. Back in 2011 I did make a few edits to the article myself, but I would now prefer to avoid any edits. It is my understanding that this is in keeping with current best practices for conflict of interest editors on Wikipedia.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the requested quotes: it's the New York Times being cited, and not an op-ed piece in that paper, so IMO it should be regarded as a reliable source without scare quotes. I added a deep link to the infographic.

You're right about the EPA, though, so I changed that. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Qwertyus. The reason I asked for the quotes is not as scare quotes but since this is a direct quote of a complete phrase from the source. I believe it is standard on Wikipedia to use quote marks where language is taken directly from a source, to clearly show that this is the exact language rather than a paraphrasing. If that makes sense, would you make this change?

Regarding the EPA, thank you for making the edit to that sentence. I see that the name of the organization is still in quotes, which I do not feel is needed. Neither is the detail regarding the financial backing of the EPA by Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, since this has no bearing on DCI Group nor on the relationship between the two organizations. Do you have any thoughts regarding these two edits?

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Qwertyus, thank you for removing the quotes around European Privacy Association. I appreciate you making that change. Did you have any thoughts about the details on the EPA's financial backing? It is a minor issue, but I don't feel like it provides any valuable information about DCI Group.

Well, given that Microsoft is also a DCI customer, I do think it's interesting. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to let you know that I'm thinking I might take the issue in the introduction to Third opinion. It appears that we don't agree on whether or not the quotes are needed and I think that a third voice would be the quickest way to resolve this issue.

I'd already asked SmartSE on their talk page to get a third voice in this discussion, but got no reply. Feel free to take it to 3O. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

3O Response: There are two separate problems with the quote. Firstly, most other references do not talk about "front" campaigns or deception, and the rest of the article does not dwell on that, so I think it is undue weight to put this in a prominent place at the top of the article. The second smaller problem is that the quote is not in the actual NYT reference but in an infographic. I dont want to ignore the NYT though. I think this quote can be removed from the top of the article, but maybe replaced in a less prominent place. Maybe we could say "According to the New York Times, DCI is known for" etc. in the Grassroots Communications heading. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 13:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) .

Hi Dental plan, thank you for taking the time to review the discussion and weigh in. Would you be willing to make the changes you suggested? As I explained above, I work with DCI Group and feel that it is best if I abstain from making any changes myself.

Also, your input would be welcome on the discussion of whether or not information about the European Privacy Association's financial supporters should be included in the article.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

QVVERTYVS, are you OK with this change? Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 15:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere does the article mention deception, and the rest of this article does not "dwell" on the quote because it still largely describes DCI largely from its own perspective: as a successful PR firm with lots of clients, using PR jargon such as "online outreach". The NYT quote is just the most clearly-put description of this company's core business that I could find on the web. So no, I'd really like the quote to stay where it is. We could put the self-description of "grassroots communications" next to it, we can put in quotes for all I care, but only describing this company in its own terms in the lead would, I think, give an inaccessible introduction to those not familiar with the PR industry's jargon. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dental plan and Qwertyus. I think that Dental plan's suggestion has a lot of merit and would support that change if it was made. However, I'd like to resolve this issue, so here is what I suggest: Can we compromise by leaving the quote in the introduction, but adding in the quotation marks and making clear that this is the view of the New York Times? The most important thing here is to accurately reflect the source and provide clear attribution for specific wording. Adding quotes would allow us to do that, while leaving this information in the introduction where Qwertyus feels it should stay. Is everyone agreeable to this?

Dental plan, if you had an opinion to share about whether or not the European Privacy Association's financial supporters should be included in this article, I would be interested in that too, since this was also a point on which Qwertyus and I have diverging views.

Thank you. Willemite (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I've given this a little while, but it seems that the original Third opinion editor won't be returning to this discussion. From their user contributions, it appears she hasn't been active on Wikipedia since 23rd of August when she last commented on this page.

For this reason, I feel it is time to resubmit this request at Third opinion to see if another editor is able to weigh in and help make the agreed upon edits. Willemite (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Third opinion by Martin Hogbin

As a general comment, my opinion is that this article should not be a promotional vehicle for the DCI Group or a soapbox for anti-DCI opinion or a battleground between those two. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martin, thanks for joining the discussion. I understand your concerns and likewise do not want this page to become one-sided or a battleground. Can you help to resolve the specific issues mentioned above?

Thank you. Willemite (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Reading through the page I do not see too much of either promotion or soapboxing. Which parts are you concerned about. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Hi again Martin, Qwertyus and I have differing opinions on two issues here.

1. The phrase "the creation of grass-roots fronts for corporate campaigns," is currently in the article's introduction. I had suggested adding quotation marks around "grass-roots fronts for corporate campaigns" because it is a direct quote from the NYT infographic and not a well documented assessment of DCI Group's grassroots campaign work. About the issue Qwertyus said, "Regarding the requested quotes: it's the New York Times being cited, and not an op-ed piece in that paper, so IMO it should be regarded as a reliable source without scare quotes."
2. In the "Grassroots" communications section, the final paragraph mentions DCI Group's relationship with the European Privacy Association and says that the association is "financially backed by Google, Microsoft and Yahoo.". I had suggested removing this information about the European Privacy Association's financial backers as it is not related to DCI Group. Qwertyus has said: "Well, given that Microsoft is also a DCI customer, I do think it's interesting."

These are the two issues mentioned in the Third opinion request. What are your thoughts on these two issues? How do you suggest they be handled?

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

1 I do not like the use of quotation marks to half say something. I tend to think we should either say something or not say it. It seems logical to me that a campaign orchestrated by a commercial organisation cannot possibly be a grassroots campaign, pretty well by definition. What is it about the wording that you do not like?

2 I tend to agree with you here; we seem to be making some rather oblique point. Qwertyus may find it interesting but I do not think it is encyclopedic information. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll get rid of that bit. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qwertyus and Martin.

Qwertyus: Thank you for being agreeable to the change to the "Grassroots" communication section and for making that change.

Martin: My first concern with the wording is that it was taken directly (not reworded) from an infographic from the NYT, but there is nothing in the text reflecting this fact. You'll find the quote on this infographic. My second concern is that this statement was taken from an infographic that is designed to show purported links between the Institute of Liberty and Asia Pulp & Paper, and it is not a description of DCI Group's grassroots campaign work that is widely used. To me, this seems like it is misleading to use this description without quotes indicating it is a particular source's opinion, in the article introduction. Willemite (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

As for the "widely used" bit, I find both "astroturfing" and "grassroots communications" in quite a few of the sources for this article. Both mean the same thing, but are loaded terms. The NYT phrase is a very clear description for those outside the world of PR and lobbying. You can't declare every sourced statement that you or your employer doesn't like to be "a particular source's opinion". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I had wanted to give this request through the weekend to see if Martin would be returning, but it looks like that will not be happening. I'm considering the request completed and thank everyone for their input.

Qwertyus: I understand you're frustrated by what you feel is me dragging out this process and I do appreciate you removing that remark. I was simply trying to facilitate a full discussion of the issue and help Martin to understand my concerns, since the original Third opinion editor did not return to the page. I can accept that we don't agree on the introduction and will concede that consensus is to leave it as it is for now. Thanks for your help on the other section.

As I've been looking closely at the article, I do have another request, which hopefully will be much simpler and I'll return soon to discuss that.

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Two more points for discussion

As I mentioned at the end of the discussion above this new thread I have another request to present. I'm hoping that this is a much simpler discussion and that it won't occupy too much of anyones Wikipedia or personal time. Again, there are two parts to this request.

First, in the introduction, there is a mention that "DCI Group has engaged in climate change denial campaigns", but this is not clearly supported by the source used. The source mentions DCI Group has aimed to "raise doubts about the science of global warming", but certainly does not indicate multiple "campaigns" denying climate change. Moreover, I feel that the use of "denial" is a loaded phrase, which Wikipedia guidelines discourage.

The following is what I suggest as a replacement:

DCI Group has undertaken work that questions the science of climate change

I'm always open to other suggestions. I would simply like to find an alternate way of phrasing this that accurately reflects the source and does not use loaded terms.

Second, I would like editors to review the See also section. According to WP:ALSO:

As a general rule, the 'See also' section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.

However, both of the pages listed in this section are linked to in the body of the article. The link to Al Gore's Penguin Army is in the DCI Digital section from the anchor text "YouTube video" and the Astroturfing article is linked in the introduction from the anchor text "grass-roots fronts for corporate campaigns".

What do others think about the inclusion of this section? Is it necessary?

Thank you, Willemite (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Please note that there are two Wikipedia pages about what WSJ might mean by "raising doubts about the science of global warming". Global warming controversy "concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be". But climate change denial describes "organized attempts to downplay, deny or dismiss the scientific consensus on the extent of global warming, its significance, and its connection to human behavior, especially for commercial or ideological reasons" (bold added). Since we are discussing an advertising and lobbying organisation, I cannot but conclude that what Wikipedia calls climate change denial matches closely what is described in the WSJ article, so I see no problem in using that term.

Whether "placing skeptical scientists on talk-radio shows and paying them to write editorials" (note plurals) is enough to warrant the word "campaign" (or even "campaigns") is a matter of definition of that word. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Qwertyus. I understand your comments on the first part of my request. Let's table that discussion for now. Do you have any thoughts about the See also section? Willemite (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to focus on one incident, which is odd. It should contain something like a short list of similar firms, I guess. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 09:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see the See also section being used for that. However, nothing springs to mind that is particularly relevant, and I see from looking at other public relations and communications firms' articles that the See also section does not typically list other companies. WP:ALSO does note that not all articles will have See also sections, so in this instance I think it would make most sense to simply remove it because there are no important articles related to DCI and its operations that are not already linked elsewhere in the article. What do you think? Willemite (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've discussed both of these issues with User:Qwertyus and they have removed the See also section. I understand Qwertyus' comments about the phrase "raise doubts about the science of global warming", so for now I'm going to let this sit. If anyone comes across this and has any opinions on the matter, please feel free to comment here.

Thank you. Willemite (talk) 20:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

What does DCI stand for?

It should be in the article. 64.211.58.60 (talk) 14:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC)