Talk:Reputation management/Archives/2014

Removal of Redirect from Online Reputation Management Page.

Hi All,

We need an consensus for removal of the redirect of Online reputation management. Since Reputation management is the umbrella concept. So, all the sub-concepts do have a separate page. Except Online reputation management.

Please add in your comments and do vote for the same. Mananshah15 (talk) 12:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I put the redirect in with a BRD note, seeing that there were some very old merge discussions with no consensus, after merging the well-cited content from ORM that wasn't redundant with the Reputation Management article.

A few comments:

• Many news stories and vendors use Reputation Management and Online Reputation Management synonymously.[1][2][3]
• Reputation management was originally coined as a PR term, but with advances in social media and the Web was morphed into primarily referring to ORM (source not available online)
• The content of both articles are very similar and cover the same concept. (See "overlap" on reasons for a merge)

My understanding from what I've read is that almost all Reputation Management in the modern era is = Online Reputation Management. ORM is merely an update in the language used to describe the concept. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so when multiple terms have very similar meanings, we only cover unique concepts, not every term or phrase used to describe it. I haven't found any sources yet that cover offline reputation management in substantial depth, but I would imagine we could keep something like that in this article purely for historical purposes.

Hopefully this helps explain the rationale, however if consensus is different than so be it! User:Corporate Minion 14:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Both of you are probably talking about [4][5], i.e. whether online reputation management should be a separate article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLAR of Vulnerabilities of Reputation Management Systems

I've redirected that article here. It was mostly based on one academic paper containing a critique of such systems. Probably some useful content can be merged here after this page is expanded to describe software-based RM systems. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The technique used is specifically called "reverse seo" not simply seo. Somebody should change that, many citations exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.19.145.185 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just spent the last 6 hours expanding this article, and I'm willing to bet it won't stand 6 minutes before Somebody edits it. That's as it should be, but I hope those edits won't be made merely to protect the golden calf.

Reputation and mechanisms to manage it are not peculiar to online communities. People do not stop being people when they get online; an online community is not really very different from a nation, a city, a town, a tribe, or a bunch of people waiting for a haircut. Personal reputation and group reputation cannot really be managed in exceptionally novel ways -- I don't say it is inappropriate to do so; merely an impossibility: there is nothing new under the sun. Many systems have been tried, and most should be mentioned here.

Part of my bias, if that means anything at all, is that WP should not move towards a point-based, formal reputation or grading system of articles, edits, or WP members, ala Slashdot or E2. I do think we need to work to repair our reputation management system, but we need to keep that system as open as possible, and not let it become the focus itself of controversy or attention. I actually hope for less formal procedure that we have at present, replacing some hard security with soft security.

If some external links seem questionable or off-topic, please read them carefully. Articles that seem to go over the related question of the reputation of WP as a whole sometimes discuss the issue of individual members' reputations.

I'm going to omit any defense of the material itself; it has flaws and needs much more work. More references should be added to social dynamics studies in the Real World, studies that focus on how members' reputations are managed in various societies. The descriptions of other online communities' models need to be expanded.

This is not, nor should be, a detailed analysis of WP's shortcomings; nor should it be a whitewash. WP should be described in the same terms as, and compared with, other communities with reputation management systems -- which is to say, every other society of humans, and perhaps of any animal capable of forming any society at all, right down to the ants.

I hope WP's description will not be cut by some officious person denigrating it as self-reference. Edit, yes; whitewash, no. To discuss reputation management within online communities at all, but to omit reference to WP, is to be coy at best, and secretive at worst. We, as a project, will gain no good reputation within the larger community of thinking people if we pretend we ourselves are above examination. — Xiongtalk 15:38, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

As usual, my skills at the crystal ball are pitiful; nearly a week has gone by without an edit to this substantial page. I do think it can be improved. — Xiong熊talk 22:58, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

I'm responding to the suggestion that "online reputation management" (ORM) and "reputation management" (RM) entries should be merged.

ORM is indeed a subset of RM. However, with the rise of the Internet and heavy usage of Social Media ORM should have it's own entry as it is important for individuals to be conscious that the most accessible data about their reputation is on the web.

User: Louis Halpern (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 19:55, 2009 Oct 18 (BST)

Dear User: Louis Halpern, the discussion about merging RM and ORM (Online reputation management) dates from 2005. More recent discussions are to be found at the bottom of the page --Nabeth (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree to merge: The article concerning online reputation management can be greatly shrunk and incorporated into the main article. There is a great deal of padding in the former article and it can be presented in a few crisp sentences, devoid of industry-promoting tone. --174.16.38.237 (talk) 04:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not merge it with Internet presence management instead? --Dan Leveille^TALK 03:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree to merge the two article. ORM includes a number of different methods and strategies. Please check my updates to the ORM article. Biggleswiki (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the first paragraph (this is my first involvement with a WikiPedia edit). Even though Reputation Managment is the current phrase being used to describe the web incarnation of this, that is not the primary use of the phrase. This needs to be broken off into ORM as suggested. The majority of the world will not think about the web when you talk about reputation management. This is coming from someone who works in ORM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick24601 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)