User talk:CorporateM/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

PR firm ...[edit]

... providing another candidate for you --Senra (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help. I think you meant in a volunteer capacity: "assist you or your own PR firm in writing an encyclopedic article..." - at first I was surprised because I thought you were advertising my services, which would be a no-no on Wikipedia ;-)
Happy to chip in. I think in some cases it may help to get perspective from a colleague from more of a business/legal perspective, rather than the vague Wiki-speak that is standard fair for COI discussions. CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: COI[edit]

Thanks for those pointers you gave in regards to COI. I really appreciate them and they are helpful. The approach of providing this information was a lot more helpful that threatening to be slapped with a COI. I just want to make sure information on this CloudForge page is accurate as possible because there is no one else in this world that knows more about this product that me. I will use the talk page and have others fix the inaccuracies. I will follow you instructions. I hope I do it correctly. It's all with goo intention. Thank you once again for pointing me in the right direction. Nickb79 (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Seaver Autism Center[edit]

Would you take a look at this one please if you have time? I just chopped out some of the more egregious spam and puffery but it needs more work. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 20:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

COI behaviour[edit]

I noticed your recent post to template talk:COI editnotice and in particular "Many COIs are argumentative and bitter and not pleasant to work with". I would be very interested in learning why this is. Is it because of the way such editors have been treated by Wikipedians early in their editing career? As an example, this 15-edit editor has had five negative posts (including one of mine) to their talk-page. I can understand such editors frustrations --Senra (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are a few common reasons, like perspective on what's neutral and being so invested in the content that they take things personally and get upset when they don't get their way. But I think the biggest source is entitlement. Because Wikipedia is openly editable, PRs feel they have the right/privilege to control its content. In my view, PRs need to earn the community's good graces by repeatedly demonstrating value, the same way PRs earn relationships with journalists. The legal argument is a good way to strip PRs of that sense of entitlement and remind them that Wikipedia is a crowd-sourced website that is still owned by the crowds. They are here as guests and they are welcome so long as they are of value to us.
The stakes are high for PRs and they have bosses who usually have unrealistic expectations, etc. They have a lot of crap going on behind the scenes that makes it very stressful. It took a long time for me to figure out how to handle this myself. CorporateM (Talk) 20:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's another thing though. This editor says here that he was trying to provide "a service to anyone using Wikipedia." I wonder if he convinced himself of that. PR people serve their clients, not the reader. If he did serve the reader, he wouldn't have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 20:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey CorporateM, I see you're on call. Maybe you can make something of Arif Naqvi, where I've reverted a possible COI editor twice now. The person is surely notable, of course, but I'm not in the mood to write another rich person's autobiography. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done I just did a quick cleanup of the content they added. CorporateM (Talk) 18:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • In simple terms, COI editors are usually people with a financial interest in making the article as rosy as possible for their bosses. Anything that interferes with this hurts their wallet, and people are very defensive when they see someone digging in their wallets in the name of "neutrality". The vast majority are interested only in promoting their product and have zero interest in building an encyclopedia. If left unchecked, most would remove all negative material, no matter how factual or properly sourced. That is the nature of COI. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 18:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Well... a few things. I would say that ~97% of PR participants are not specifically paid for participating on Wikipedia and would not lose money in the literal sense based on the outcome, rather they have bosses and/or clients that want the corporate-approved version in article-space and, without any immediate resolution, they are faced with having to explain to the boss or client.
However, Senra, I wouldn't look at it so exclusively as them being a newbie, rather than the COI itself. There is a balance between too much good-faith or too much bad-faith. Brown points out quite rightly that it's the very nature of COI that the PR editor does not care about Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean they meant it any harm either. Most are agnostic to Wikipedia's well-being and just want to "do their jobs." CorporateM (Talk) 18:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Keep in mind, financial gain isn't always direct. If the boss says "add this to Wikipedia" and you can't, but someone down the hall can, then it indirectly affects you financially, as you will be seen as less effective in the corporate world. Not all financial gain is as simple as paid editing, but the net result is the same, you are paid to make things happen in the corporate world, be it to eventually get promoted (or simply not laid off at the next round) or directly compensated, there is still a money element to it. People that don't work in a direct, capitalistic capacity don't always understand that. Those of us that work in marketing know that all the boss really cares about is results, not so much how you get them. The bosses care even less if Wikipedia is made "less" due to the efforts. Dennis Brown - © Join WER 19:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I've been told my form of paid editing is like buying organic, cage-free eggs or chicken - you pay a premium for how it's sourced. Someone like Wiki-PR sells a "better" product (from the client's perspective) in a way that requires fewer internal resources and costs less. Why would someone pay more and spend more time on getting a lesser product? They care about how the outcome is reached, whether it's because of the law, perceived risk or genuine good-will of employees that work there. But buying organic will always be a tiny niche market, while most are focused on "results" and they measure results differently than us.
However, here's another thing. Companies that have corporate messaging that is very grounded in the actual facts tend to have similar messaging repeated in secondary sources. Their COI is less significant than companies where secondary sources deviate more significantly from their version of the truth. I would argue that companies that are genuinely "good" and do good marketing have a much less intense COI. CorporateM (Talk) 19:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers[edit]

I have been coaching Proactiv through a a draft that is now shared on the Talk page. I think they did a particularly excellent job considering the volume of controversial or negative material. Any Talk page stalkers that have an interest are invited to comment, though I have also pinged a few editors with a potential interest specifically. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As you've probably noticed, I've made a few tweaks. Overall it's pretty good - it's certainly a surprise to see a COI editor writing about how their product has been criticised for being only as effective as generic brands! I've add a {{what}} as I have no idea what a 'Gentle Formula' is and the link doesn't work for me. I'm also a bit unsure whether you should be citing the journal article as per WP:MEDRS it doesn't seem particuarly suitable. A quick look at the abstract shows that n=11 or 12 and that "Trials of short duration with small numbers of patients do not adequately inform practitioners". Either remove it or make it clearer that it was a very small study. SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 Done The link is down for me atm as well, but I found a copy of the abstract here, which said 23 users over 8 weeks. RE the product comparison, I will say, from their perspective (and I see their point) it's unfair to compare the Proactiv system (which comes with 3-4 products) with an over-the-counter product. However, even if you buy generic versions of all three products, it would still cost less. It would be disingenuous to pretend like we were unaware of the controversies and criticisms, though I will simultaneously say that I have been caught genuinely unaware before.
I would be curious as to your general thoughts. Do COIs need to also add contentious material to be doing honest work here? A lot of companies figure they will not be disruptive if editors add something, but - from their point-of-view - they are not obligated to point it out themselves. In my view, this creates a game of cat and mouse for volunteers to figure out what's missing, but it's also an impossible standard to expect PRs to shoot themselves in the foot by adding negative content, as has been done here. CorporateM (Talk) 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A neutral POV is one of the five pillars. Would it not be better for the COI to add sourced criticism, thus (potentially) putting their own balancing spin on it? To wait for an uninvolved editor to add a sourced but more overtly negative criticism is asking for trouble. The COI might then be tempted to revert leading to all kinds of trouble for one and all. If sourced criticism exists, COI's should be encouraged to add it (IMHO) --Senra (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Since all my COI edits require approval by volunteers, I am subject to whatever bar is set for me, but I'll chime in as a matter of general discussion. I distinguish between "incomplete" versus "cherry-picking." Meaning, if someone creates a Reception section that is misleading, this is poor behavior, but if they simply choose not to create a Reception section at all, they are just acknowledging an area where they cannot be neutral.
I talked to someone a while back that thought they did a pretty good (neutral) job as a PR editor, though a major controversy was omitted. A year ago I would have thought this was ok, but now that I know Controversies are part of History and not a separate section, I would see it as cherry-picking. My Statement of Ethics only says we are required to disclose anything of interest, so that editors do not have to speculate on what's missing, but clients are not required to contribute in areas where they could not possibly be neutral.CorporateM (Talk) 22:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
We just have to repeat what the sources say - whether they are really 'right' or not is relatively irrelevant. I am glad that you have included negative things as it shows you are really making an effort to write a neutral article. You are correct that if COI editors don't include negative information then it makes us suspicious. The problem is that doing good research takes a long time meaning that it is always difficult for volunteers who know nothing about the subject to tell whether an article is really a neutral and accurate description of a company. I've had a look at some of the sources in the draft now and I'm less sure about how good it is... I'll put some notes on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed RE hiding information creates suspicion. This company in particular seems to show a history of being pretty open about the criticisms. I'll check out your comments once posted. CorporateM (Talk) 23:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
That seems like good feedback Smart. Pricing is a substantial criticism that warrants more than a sentence. Appreciate your being so thorough. I've forwarded your comments along. CorporateM (Talk) 01:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Infront Sports & Media[edit]

Dear CorporateM - Just wanted to extend appreciation once again for your support with this page. Thanks for your 'tweaks' I will address the repetition and put out another edit request over in due course / keep you posted. If you need support with any of the good work you do to keep PR input honourable, do let me know. In the UK the Institute of Public Relations are working hard to provide PRs with guidelines - something that I feel should be embraced by the Wikipedia community. Will be in touch. --HablasESport!121 (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I would say "keep" PR input honorable, rather than make it so in the first place. I went to an AMA event here in the states on social media. One speaker was perfectly comfortable talking about their CEO that hopped on Twitter and started following XXX Twitter handles. But when I asked what their Wikipedia policy was, everyone dropped their mic, crossed their arms, stiffened up and stone-walled the question. They know they're ashamed. Have you ever seen Wikipedia included in a PR case study? That's because nobody is proud of their work here.
It is not in a company's best interest to do honorable work here. You disclosed, asked for feedback and stayed on the Talk page, and as a result I expanded a controversy and deleted 6,000 bytes in promotion. Many of the Request Edits I answered resulted in huge cuts of promotionalism that would have probably never been addressed if they didn't bring attention to the article. They would have been better off operating discreetly.
Wikipedia sets an impossible standard of asking PRs to be neutral journalists on themselves, instead of being advocates for their client's best interest and of being honest, when there is an incredible incentive to behave anonymously and be intentionally bias. Of course, we have no means of establishing whether a bias is intentional or not.
I think the single most important thing is making it in the company's best interest to act honorably, and the most powerful way to do that would be to convince Mary Engle from the FTC to publish some legal guidance and set a precedence that astroturfing Wikipedia is illegal. This way, PRs and their respective legal departments will be highly motivated to act honorably, because the law is clear.
PRs should support this. The FTC sets legal precedence partially to help marketing firms push back on clients so they can simply say "it's illegal, can't do it" when it comes to astroturfing review sites and other crowd-sourced websites. The single most impactfull thing that could be done would be for CIPR, PRSA, and others to engage Ms. Engle and the relevant regulation authorities in respective countries to assist us in this issue. When it's crystal clear that the ethical path is the only legal one, we will see more of it. CorporateM (Talk) 14:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, yes I'd be inclined to agree with you and I think as with any industry you have those that work with integrity and those that unfortunatley don't. Its not a perfect world and we can't expect to avoid 'teething problems' with developing communications platforms - regardless of whether they are used as promotional platforms or otherwise. As you say bias may or may not be intentional. When I'm next in touch with fellows of the IPR, I'll put this discussion to them. I'm afraid, other than my first hand experience of Wikipedia, I'm fairly new to this debate and have only recently come across the guidlines I mentioned previously. Clearly there is much to be done with respect to PR practise on Wikipedia as well as the broader social networks - exciting times. --HablasESport!121 (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
The Chartered Institute of Public Relations has done some of the best work in this area. I wrote their Wikipedia article. I talked to the guy from the German Wikipedia who is working on a paid editing project and encouraged him to meet with them while he is in London. CIPR is doing training, which is needed. Though I am grateful to those that have mentored me, in practice training should be paid for by PR people, rather than provided as a free service by Wikipedians. The primary thing I could see that Wikipedia needs to do is support a working, consistent, request edit system. 1 hour a day would be adequate at it's current volume.
Ultimately, the ethics established by trade associations are useful and do have an effect, but are marginal compared to the impact that could be made by legal guidelines. I wish I knew the best way to get the FTC and other organizations to call attention to the issue. I notice in the past they have been lobbied by special interest groups to draw their attention somewhere; if someone were to lobby the FTC to draw their attention here - that would be useful; I believe lobbying is an expertise of some of CIPR's membership, which might explain why they did it better than PRSA in regards to the Wikipedia issue. But they would likely see soliciting FTC's involvement as counter to their position and their memberships' best interest. I'd be fascinated to find out. I do think they are a genuinely "good" organization and the Chartered status is not just for show. CorporateM (Talk) 16:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


It's is so gratifying to hear you say that. I'm delighted to have made contact with you. I understand it wasn't an easy job putting the guidelines together but feel it’s a brilliant start and something I myself would happy to become more involved with in due course. My grandmother helped to build the CIPR into the organisation it is today (Maggie Nally) and it’s very close to my heart. As a PR professional it’s of upmost importance to me to work with total integrity. I'm not as 'active' in the online side of things as I'd like but have recently purchased the 'Share This' Social Media Handbook produced by the CIPR (yet to find the time to read it). I will try to uncover the 'general feeling' towards this situation and your lobbying idea. Nice to chat with you :-) --HablasESport!121 (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear CorporateM

I have some feedback in terms of your lobbying idea from my contacts at the CIPR. Accountability and the Code of Conduct are key to CIPR so developing guidelines for social media and Wikipedia are crucial to their aims - they have a Social Media Panel that could be approached – you may have worked with some of them to develop the Wikipedia Guidelines?

Until recently, the CIPR and the International Group have concentrated more on UK needs but the aim now is to have a far more international outreach. This includes the Global Alliance which is the international version of the CIPR. In principle the CIPR would be willing to look at what you are suggesting but the FTC – Federal Trade Commission – is an American organisation over which CIPR would have no role or influence. It will take time to investigate the relevant UK body that could help with reinforcing how people use Wikipedia. Probably the Department of Trade and Industry but this would need to be researched. Let me know if you have further questions. I hope this is of some interest. --HablasESport!121 (talk) 11:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Best place to start would be the International Consumer Protection and Enforcement Network, which "encourage global cooperation among law enforcement agencies." Its participating organizations[1] include the Federal Trade Commission in the US, as well as the Office of Fair Trading in the UK and the European Commission among others. It's mission[2] includes sharing best practices and finding international remedies. CorporateM (Talk) 14:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Crashplan[edit]

I don't know, it's a little advertisey still. I'm not sure what to do, other than maybe getting rid of the reception section and merging its content into another section. Gigs (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I made it a bit smaller and removed quotes. I feel quotes almost always impart a POV. Let me know what you think now that I made changes. They do genuinely get positive reviews and the criticisms (slow speeds and the missing feature) are included, but the quotes make it sound overly cheery maybe. CorporateM (Talk) 16:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Solentive Technology Group[edit]

Another possible PR person who may need help --Senra (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

JMP GA[edit]

Hi Corporate, I've finished up my review of your article, there are a few small things you might want to look at so please check the review page. Thanks! RetroLord 07:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done I feel a bit more timid defending my edits where I have a COI, because I do not want to seem argumentative or like I am defending my interests, but I did think it should say Six Sigma specifically rather than productivity generally. I'll still change it if you feel strongly. Thanks for reviewing!!
I suspect my COI GANs will stay in the queue a bit longer, because some reviewers will choose not to donate their time to do so much work supporting someone that is acting in a PR capacity, so the pool of available reviewers is smaller. CorporateM (Talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of songs about London[edit]

It looks like you made an edit to List of songs about London at the request of an IP user. The user seems to be back with a different IP and is requesting another edit. I just wanted to let you know that at my suggestion he's left a comment at Talk:List of songs about London. Since it was me that told him to post there I don't know if it would then be appropriate for me to answer his request—and anyway I know nothing about the topic—so I'm wondering if you might take a look. Thanks! —Noiratsi (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the topic, but the Request Edit looks fairly obvious, so I gave the go-ahead. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Synechron[edit]

I wanted to first say that I completely support your efforts to reduce peacocking and flat-out self-promotion in Wikipedia in general and the article Synechron specifically. I completely understand why you effectively reduced the article to a single sentence recently. Having said that, after I attempted to salvage this article a little bit by including only relevant "just-the-facts" information about this company, you seem to have cut those out as well for reasons that retain unstated (no edit summary left). Could you elaborate a little on your motivation in doing that? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like I deleted the following:
with global offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Charlotte, Denver, Nashville, San Diego, Canada, London, Amsterdam, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, and Pune, India.
This would be better placed under "number of locations" in the infobox; not much value to readers to add a long list of locations. CorporateM (Talk) 03:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, except that you you didn't put it in the infobox; you simply deleted it. Why? I'm really trying to understand your motivations here as to avoid conflict. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 04:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. My motives are to fill tiny spaces of time while I'm waiting at loading screens in Star Wars: The Old Republic or during commercials on my weekend. A lot of these bits of time I spend deleting the most obvious spam by doing searches for "industry-leading" or "turnkey". Since someone kept reverting my cleanup, it kept re-popping on my search for "industry-leading" so I watchlisted it in order to protect the article. CorporateM (Talk) 21:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • laugh* Okay, I could have worded my question more clearly. I apologise for that. I understand that you are trying to protect the article from self-promotion and advertising. However, if this article is going to remain on Wikipedia and ever grow out of Start-class, we do have to allow SOME content. Their list of offices isn't promotional per se, and if you continue to delete everything about the company that gets added, especially by disinterested third-parties such as myself, this article will always remain a stub. I fear you might be a little overzealous in this one case. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
ok - point taken. CorporateM (Talk) 03:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The IP address was copy/pasting from the company website[3] so I have given him a copyright warning on his Talk page. CorporateM (Talk) 14:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template[edit]

Hi CM, as I hope you know, I've always respected your input into COI issues, because you've been a voice of reason. But I think when it comes to that template, you should consider whether you have a COI yourself. WP:NOPAY is clear in advising against direct editing, so the template can't say anything that appears to be weaker than that. If you believe NOPAY ought to be changed, the place to discuss that is on the COI talk page, but it can't be changed at the template level. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on the RTI page GA[edit]

I've been AFK for a long while. You're doing pretty well on your own. You might consider putting yourself forward as a mentor now... BusterD (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!! That's an interesting idea. I'm still trying to figure out the most appropriate form of interaction between myself and other PR people on Wikipedia. Sharing what I've learned is probably the right role, so that doing Wikipedia reasonably well can spread and I can return the favor for those that have mentored me. CorporateM (Talk) 14:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Mindjet[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page.
Message added 12:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

COI questions[edit]

Hey Corporate, I'm wondering if you think this draft request for comment would prove fair and useful? User:Ocaasi/coiquestions. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting a little nervous as your rewrite appears to be making the document more complex. Thoughts? Ocaasi t | c 20:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I see where you're going now. I have to think about how it compares and we'll see which version is preferred by others. Thanks for sticking with it and apologies for my hasty judgement. Ocaasi t | c 20:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

New changes on Atos page[edit]

Hey Corporate, thank you for the comprehensive revision that has taken place of the Atos page recently. It looks much better for the clean-up. I would like to request one further update regarding the make-up of the company by adding the paragraph below. In my opinion, the current text gives a slightly misleading description of the structure of Atos. Can you have a look at the Atos talk page for my suggestions? thanks in advance. (tim362729|t )(COI) 08:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

In general I would prefer not to handle Request Edits, but as you noticed, there are few editors manning the queue. I think the article is in ok shape now thanks to a lot of cleanup of both promotion and unsourced attacks, undue, editorializing, etc. But I would suggest you could add a paragraph summarizing the company's history to the Lead and the Services section needs some neutral expansion. The controversy about the medical system will always take a large portion of the article, because it's been covered so extensively. CorporateM (Talk) 01:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalkers[edit]

I think there are already enough active editors watchlisting the Yelp, Inc. Talk page, but I thought I would make a habit of announcing it here where I am participating in a public relations capacity for anyone who wants to follow me around or help out. I've shared a draft at Talk:Yelp,_Inc.#History. The Talk page looks active, so I think there will be an editor or two with some interest and knowledge in the subject-matter that will hopefully take an interest in collaborating. CorporateM (Talk) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply at my talk page[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added byNorthamerica1000(talk) 08:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Infront Sports & Media[edit]

Dear CorporateM - I have made a couple of minor changes to the article again and wonder if you would take a look. They only clarify a few points that it was believed could be misleading. Also the subsidiary information which was incorrect. I put out an 'edit request'. My next step will be to look into your other concern regarding the repitition of HBS / FIFA info in the original article draft - I do feel some expansion on this area would be valuable. It's on the 'to do' list.

Meanwhile, I've gone back to the CIPR on our previous communications and I'm awating a reply. I will be in touch in respect to that seperately as and when. Many thanks for your help, Regards --HablasESport!121 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done

Many thanks for your help, I've provided some further input on the Talk Page for you to consider in light of your input - a few things that need to be checked. Also, an award that you might feel would add value. Thanks --HablasESport!121 (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done
Many thanks - again :-) Have a few questions about the award side of things - don't fully understand -have put a comment on the talk page. Much appreciate your advice.

--HablasESport!121 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sorry, I often do edits in a split-second glance and am not very thorough. CorporateM (Talk) 14:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's ok - much appreciate the help. Is there anything further you feel I should do now to improve the article? Also commented on Talk Page for this and to extend my appreciation. --HablasESport!121 (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not GA or FA material, but it's pretty good. Probably one of the better articles we have, when you consider most our company articles are starts or stubs. I was considering upgrading it to B-class, but I am too involved to do so. I can't give you much good advice at this point without doing the research, which I'm not prepared to do, but I can give you some generalized advice based on some assumptions and generalizations, which may turn out to be poor advice.
For example, in general the History section is usually the largest, so that makes me think History might need some expansion. It could use some general copyediting and the infobox seems a bit empty. Is their revenue public? It could use an image.
You probably have a day job to do with other priorities and the article looks good. So up to you. CorporateM (Talk) 22:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Deutsche Diskussion zum bezahlten Schreiben[edit]

Hi CorporateM. I'm working on a translation of these text, but right now just in German and to keep you informed. I wrote s short piece in the Kurier about the German discussion, which refers to a a much longer text on a subpage about the project. -- Dirk Franke (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! It's tough to understand it through machine translation, but it sounds like the type of summary you would expect. Opportunity for resources mixed with the potential to damage Wikipedia's neutrality; a complex cultural issue since Wikipedia's editors (unlike other websites) are unpaid and are de-motivated by others being paid for it.
In my mind these discussion could progress further by driving towards being solution-oriented. In general, we know the type of COI participation we like and what we don't like. We like those that at least try to be neutral, learn our rules, disclose, use Talk pages, etc. and we dislike blatant spam and non-disclosed promotion. The focus of the discussion should be how to get less of the bad stuff, more of the good stuff and do some bad -> good conversion. Actual actionable steps we can take like clearer documentation, better boundaries, outreach, established processes, carrots and sticks. CorporateM (Talk) 18:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Your feedback[edit]

I'm glad I needed to find a link to Dennis Brown, or I would have missed your feedback.

First, thanks for chiming in. My goal is to get some feedback before I formally propose this, and your thoughts are helpful.

I like your idea of looking at most recent edits. My modification is that I would see this as an addition, rather than a replacement. To pick an example, Apple Inc., the article has been around for quite some time, and is now in a "maintenance" mode. Most of the major contributors to the article haven't contributed in the last year, while most in the last year are making tweaks to the article. Valuable but to only acknowledge them would be unfair to those who wrote most of the article. The simple solution is that there is room for both. One could have a list of all time contributors, as well as a list of the main contributors in the last year.

The Contributor list Apple example has a last edit field, so it should not be hard to filter on the contributors in the last year, or whatever period we select.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds neat. Good point, I wouldn't want to get knocked off the top spot on an article I brought up to GA, because someone else made a couple copy-edits. You could call these "largest contributor" and "most active contributor". It would be an interesting question whether someone could be the top contributor for deletions, rather than additions. I think there are plenty of articles where I am the top contributor to the article, even though all I did was delete content.
BTW - we have also communicated through the OTRS system. It's awkward to talk to the same person from both my real identity and my anonymous online username, but my anonymity is also important to me to protect myself from off-wiki harassment and the like. Just wouldn't want it to be weird if you found out I was the same person... CorporateM (Talk) 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Moody's Analytics[edit]

Hello, CorporateM. I am a representative of Moody's on Wikipedia and I would like to bring to your attention some recent changes to the Moody's Analytics article as well as to discuss changes that you have made on this page. I have left a message about this on the MA talk, and ask for you to review my thoughts there and consider undoing two of your recent changes to the article. There is another issue on which I would be grateful of your opinion: although some of the material removed was promotional in tone, it did provide useful information regarding products offered by the company. I wish to open discussion to see whether this could be re-added if rewritten in a non-promotional manner and supported with third party sources. Would you be able to help with that? Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have responded now on the Moody's Analytics discussion page. It is fine if you do not wish to be involved much further, however I do have another question about your recent changes. Your response is welcome. Many thanks, Mysidae (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

Thanks for the input. Any ideas for a title? Basalisk inspect damageberate 12:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Oof, I am never very good with titles. Let me stew on it and see if I can come up with something. CorporateM (Talk) 13:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
What about something along the lines of Wikipedia being more neutral than any one source? This is somewhat controversial, because many of us believe sources are the holy grail, but we tone down media sensationalism both regarding epic tales and sensational controversies through writing style, presentation and by balancing multiple sources. I constantly hear PR people say "but that's a fact, it's sourced" regarding the 20+ awards they've won. We don't add everything that's sourced. A while back I remember Jimbo saying something like "we are editors" regarding a certain leeway for use to exercise judgement. Sources are not that different from Wikipedians, some are axe-grinders, some are fanboys and some are focused on a specific angle.
Something like "Wikipedia is more neutral than its sources." CorporateM (Talk) 22:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

RfC/U[edit]

I closed that RfC. My usual rate is $100 an hour; RfC/Us are a pain in the ass and I charge twice as much. I figure this took about four hours, over two days, and I accept PayPal but you'll have to take care of their fees. [Note to the stalkers: this is intended as somewhat humorous. Not the pain in the ass part--that's not funny.] Drmies (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I hear PR editors have no sense of humor. We also have green blood and breed by injecting harmful ideas into otherwise helpful editor-cells like a virus. This is why it's so important we get shunned off the site before the virus takes hold. But we don't sparkle in the sun, that's just a rumor spread by Twilight. I contest your fees; it's akin to an Egyptian slave demanding payment from their whipping master, because paid editors own Wikipedia and volunteers are just here to do our bidding. (my attempt at counter-jokes, but I'm not as skilled in sarcasm as Drmies).
In all seriousness, I wonder how practical it is that it takes 20-50 hours of total editor time just to shirk off a troll. Or that it takes 10 reverts before we block spammers, etc. Then we wonder why we have a hard time keeping productive editors. CorporateM (Talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk page stalker here I noticed that you are still pursuing matters regarding Cantaloupe, and I just wanted to let you know that I'm still interested in reaching an actual solution despite the concerns raised not affecting me anymore - from what I can see anyways. Although it's too early to completely reach a conclusion on whether he has altered his behaviour, it still seems that he is editing the same articles in the same manner after his unsurprising digression from the RfC/U request. As many of the issues raised by other editors in the discussion that I initiated at ANI were months old at the time, I assume many would still be interested in finding a long term solution if Cantaloupe continues to be visibly problematic. YuMaNuMa Contrib 12:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the next step is arbitration, which is really disappointing. It shouldn't be this hard to ban someone who does so much damage to the project and discourages others from contributing. But at this point we should wait to see if the behavior continues. I'm also not really sure I'm willing to take it to arbitration myself. CorporateM (Talk) 15:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts[edit]

So here's an idea I've had. I haven't worked it out, so I'm just thinking out loud.

The problem with paid editing is not Wikipedians accepting money; on the contrary, if editors can find a way to monetize their Wikipedia skills and experience, good luck to them. The problem with paid editing is threefold: (a) neutrality – that even with the best will in the world, an editor being paid by X will be nicer about X, consciously or otherwise, than she would have been if not being paid by X; (b) that paid editors who aren't already Wikipedians don't understand the way articles need to be written; and (c) that it's unfair and in the long term unsustainable to ask unpaid editors to monitor and clean up after paid ones.

So here's the idea. It could be done in one of two ways:

(1) All companies paying an editor of their choice to write an article must also pay an uninvolved Wikipedian – who would be chosen by others – to clean up the article and make it comply with the policies;
or (this would be cheaper)
(2) They must pay a Wikipedian to write the article in the first place, and that Wikipedian will be chosen by an agreed process, not by the company.

What would such a process look like? Ideally it would be administered by the Foundation, but they would probably not want to do it, in case it made them look like publishers. But regardless of who would manage it, a body would be created that would retain a list of Wikipedians who were good writers and researchers, and who would offer to write articles for customers for an agreed rate (no trying to undermine each other). To get on that list, you would need a track record of excellent contributions.

We would then have a page for editing requests, and companies would post to it (we want an article about X to be created, or we want article X to be changed in some way, or we have already employed a contractor to write the article, so we have to employ a Wikipedian to check it). Editors on the approved list would then submit their names to signal that they want the contract. And the independent body that administered the page would choose which assignment to give to which editor.

The companies would pay this independent body, and that body would take a percentage and pass the rest to the Wikipedian. Companies would have no say over who is given assignments, so that editors did not feel they had to comply with the company's wishes for fear of never being given another one. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I refer to this as "sponsored editing." A large number of high-quality articles could be created at a very low resource cost if companies could do one thing - give up control. This is very attractive to Wikipedia, because it almost completely solves the problem, however it's not attractive to companies, because they are obsessed with control. It's a compelling ideal that we'll never see in practice.
If a disinterested editor adds critical content, it's generally pretty easy for companies to understand WP:OWN. If I add critical content, I still won't get fired for it if it went through proper corporate approval cycles (which is really hard to do). However, if I were to add controversies that were not approved, that's a quick way to get fired. A lot of PR people would lose their jobs for hiring a sponsored editor that posts content outside of approval cycles.
I don't think we can ever expect PRs to be volunteer-editor replacements; this is like asking us to be journalists for ourselves (but that's what journalists are for!). Instead, it would be an improvement if PRs were at least valuable and easy to work with, the same way journalists find our services valuable, but ultimately decide what's best for their readers. CorporateM (Talk) 22:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't see any potential in the idea? It seems to me that it would (a) give companies with bad articles a legitimate way to pay to have them improved; (b) would solve the neutrality concerns associated with paid editing; and (c) would give Wikipedians who focus on good writing a way to earn some money from writing articles they might be willing to write anyway. Given that companies currently can't edit directly without violating policy (which I hope matters to the ethical ones), would this not be better than the current situation? I take your point about control, but companies don't control their articles anyway – no one does – even if for a time they have managed to. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to discourage you. That would be an ideal scenario in a perfect world and I think there are many companies that would go for it. It's something I've thought about and I came to the conclusion outlined above. I just mean it's a silver bullet in theory, but there are a lot of obstacles in practice.
The COI guideline doesn't necessarily have the effect you would think. I edited for years as a PR pro without ever reading it. COI editnotice will get us a lot closer to where PR folks will actually know, but a lot of them will be frustrated when their request edits are denied and it will take time for people to learn. Real-world repercussions like the media and the law would be more effective as a deterrent of bad behavior. CorporateM (Talk) 01:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering whether a few big companies could be persuaded to sign up to such a system, to show that it could work. But yes, there are huge obstacles, perhaps insurmountable. I was thinking of The Big Issue, a newspaper that opened in London in the 90s. It's sold by homeless people and gives them an income and a leg up, and when it first started it was written by volunteers on the understanding that it would give them a leg up too: that when money started arriving they would be paid. So it was win-win – the concept and ethos was to help everyone who got involved. We have the opposite situation on Wikipedia, where editors not only don't get paid, but where their involvement might also end up causing trouble for them, so that they come to regret the time they've spent on it. This is a great pity, because it's a worthwhile project.
Every time I post that I'm opposed to paid editing, part of me thinks, "what are you saying?" because clearly it's not in editors' interests to offer free labour. On the other hand, the integrity of the project matters a lot. So I've been trying to think of a way to square that circle. It seems to me that the key is to have a structure in place that acts as a firebreak, if that's the right word, between the payee and the paid, so that the editors are being paid by an entity that wants them to edit in Wikipedia's interests. The companies would pay that entity to ensure that everything is done fairly, and that high-quality, neutral work is the end result. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Big companies would be even less likely to do something so completely out of their control. But if you think about how overwhelmed AfC is with promotional articles, what if there was a decline template that told them to consider using the Bounty Board to recruit an editor to write it for them? Editors could start earning some money on the side for their work, instead of being bogged cleaning up after others. I think what you're looking for is to revive the bounty board as a way to pay editors instead of WMF donations and advertise the Bounty Board's services to PRs. Then, maybe put a preface on it that you have to have at least one GA to accept a bounty (or something). CorporateM (Talk) 14:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The companies that have something to hide wouldn't like the lack of control. But a lot of companies just want an accurate presence on Wikipedia, rather than something poorly written and out of date, or nothing at all. I was thinking that, for them, something like this might work. The thing about the bounty board is that it doesn't offer the firebreak. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

JMP[edit]

Hi! Sorry that review took so long, I got a bit caught up off-wiki, but it's passed now so I hope there aren't any problems. Thanks! RetroLord 11:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Retro. I think it needed a Reception section before passing as GA, but I have it on my To Do list to call JMP about it today. They have mostly very positive reviews, but I think would struggle with adding the criticisms that do exist; I'll see. CorporateM (Talk) 12:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the criteria would require a Reception section 100%, but as you say it is a good idea. Best of luck! RetroLord 12:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Awww, ok. I thought it had just slipped through the cracks. Thanks so much for all your GA reviews!! CorporateM (Talk) 12:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

PEP[edit]

Thanks for reviewing the PEP [content]. I've updated the proposed content removing PEP funds and replacing it with Funds advised by PEP. The intent was to update content on the PEP page. Cheers --Tsen2 (talk) 03:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Based on the link you provided, it doesn't look like I reviewed anything; just pointed you to AfC. We have a couple dozen articles that go by the acronym PEP, so I'm not sure which article you're referring to, but if it already exists, you're looking for Request Edit. Just go to the article's Talk page, propose your changes with a {{request edit}} above them and wait about 2-4 weeks and an editor will usually swing by. CorporateM (Talk) 15:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

COI template[edit]

Hi Corporate, a while back you asked me to participate in discussions on the proposed COI template. However, I spaced out and never got to it. Just remembered today but it looks like the discussion is over. Sorry for that. If there is any future discussions please let me know as I'd be happy to participate. Thanks! -- KeithbobTalk 20:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I've proposed a test implementation of the template at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#COI_Template. CorporateM (Talk) 22:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've commented there. :-) -- KeithbobTalk 18:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solentive Technology Group[edit]

Hi CorporateM,

I have been advised by Senra (talk) to contact you and ask for your help in structuring my article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Solentive_Technology_Group) for listing in Wikipedia.

I have gone through several iterations and believe I have adhered to the guidelines provided by Wikipedia and am not sure why my article is not being accepted.

I have cited reliable, independent sources in my article. I have ensured that the content is not promotional and have adhered to the Wikipedia's Manual of Style guidelines.

The company I am submitting the article for has been in operation for over 20 years and has had coverage in independent, highly reliable sources. I believe they meet the criteria outlined on Wikipedia to have an article.

Any assistance you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you Tanya Taouil (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tanya. I think you're banging your head against a brick wall here. The article is neutral enough, but has been rejected for lacking notability. All the relevant sources are already on the article, but not enough of them exist. There is nothing that could be changed about the article that would make it accepted, until more source material is available. The only thing I could do is recommend a PR agency to you to help build secondary sources (press coverage) that would eventually help the company meet our notability requirements.
As I've said before, I don't actually agree with this. We have 120+ articles on Linux, but when someone wants to write a small, neutral, verifiable article on a small company, we have a double-standard. I think content that is neutral and verified is useful to our readers and advertisement should be deleted regardless of their notability. But, that's how the cookie crumbles. CorporateM (Talk) 04:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi CorporateM. Thanks for your help. I will take on your suggestions and just leave it for now. Tanya Taouil (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CorporateM. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added Dismas. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiCup 2013 March newsletter[edit]

We are halfway through round two. Pool A sees the strongest competition, with five out of eight of its competitors scoring over 100, and Pool H is lagging, with half of its competitors yet to score. WikiCup veterans lead overall; Pool A's Colorado Sturmvogel_66 (submissions) (2010's winner) leads overall, with poolmate London Miyagawa (submissions) (a finalist in 2011 and 2012) not far behind. Pool F's New South Wales Casliber (submissions) (a finalist in 2010, 2011 and 2012) is in third. The top two scorers in each pool, as well as the next highest 16 scorers overall, will progress to round three at the end of April.

Today has seen a number of Easter-themed did you knows from WikiCup participants, and March has seen collaboration from contestants with WikiWomen's History Month. It's great to see the WikiCup being used as a locus of collaboration; if you know of any collaborative efforts going on, or want to start anything up, please feel free to use the WikiCup talk page to help find interested editors. As well as fostering collaboration, we're also seeing the Cup encouraging the improvement of high-importance articles through the bonus point system. Highlights from the last month include GAs on physicist Niels Bohr (Australia Hawkeye7 (submissions)), on the European hare (Wales Cwmhiraeth (submissions)), on the constellation Circinus (Alaska Keilana (submissions) and New South Wales Casliber (submissions)) and on the Third Epistle of John (Indiana Cerebellum (submissions)). All of these subjects were covered on at least 50 Wikipedias at the beginning of the year and, subsequently, each contribution was awarded at least three times as many points as normal.

Wikipedians who enjoy friendly competition may be interested in participating in April's wikification drive. While wikifying an article is typically not considered "significant work" such that it can be claimed for WikiCup points, such gnomish work is often invaluable in keeping articles in shape, and is typically very helpful for new writers who may not be familiar with formatting norms.

A quick reminder: now, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talkemail) and The ed17 (talkemail) J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Essay[edit]

Hi CM, I've created an essay at User:SlimVirgin/Ghostwriting‎ about some of the problems raised by PR people writing drafts. I wanted to let you know about it in case you have any insights. It has a talk page, and you're also welcome to edit the essay. Best, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Atos info update[edit]

Could you have a look at the talk page of Atos? Atos has new financial figures on 2012 and a referral to a legal document. thanks. (tim362729|t )(COI) 08:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Favor[edit]

Hi Coporate, if you have any time could you take a look at the article Jeffrey M. Smith and give some thoughts on the talk page and/or make edits as you see fit. The article has been a bit controversial at times and I asked for some input at BLP but no one responded. If you have time to take a quick look (its short) that would be a big help thanks! -- KeithbobTalk 18:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done CorporateM (Talk) 19:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Breakfast!.jpg
Hello, CorporateM.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


Oh? Because you want me to write an article on the best breakfast ever!? The Salsage Benedict from Briggs of course. My home-made attempts never quite match up. CorporateM (Talk) 18:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

User Award[edit]

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.

Congratulations for being a Veteran Editor! You may display this badge or others on you user page if you so desire. Thanks for all your contributions to the project! -- KeithbobTalk 13:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
QualPro2, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

mabdul (public) 13:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

'substing[edit]

Hi, I like how you do editing here within the policies etc.

I only wanted you to know that you (or anybody else) should subst the template afc comment as it won't get removed then by the helper script as I did here. Just FYI... mabdul (public) 13:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I added categories and uploaded the logo. What do you mean by "should subst the template afc comment"? CorporateM (Talk) 13:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
You added a comment at the top.
{{afc comment|1="coment". ~~~~}}

is the normal way to use them, but you 'substed the comment:

{{subst:afc comment|1="coment". ~~~~}}
Just FYI. ;-) mabdul (public) 05:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Awww, got it. Thank you so much for the tip! Didn't realize. That explains some of my prior AfCs where the comment was not removed right away. CorporateM (Talk) 05:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)