Talk:WE Communications/Archive 1

Archive 1

Editing of facts

3/11/2008 - I edited facts regarding Waggener Edstrom Worldwide office locations, practice group names, clients and numbers of offices and employees. I work for Waggener Edstrom Worldwide and have only made edits to factual information. Please contact me with questions - enichols@waggeneredstrom.com EmilyN-WE (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No sources

There is nothing at all encyclopedic on this page at all., nor any sources. Should be removed immediately. (Babasalichai (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC))

I agree, there is nothing encyclopedic on this page, no data from verifiable sources. What does large actually mean, the claims made about offerings, clients etc aren't verified by another party? Microsoftlive (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Am removing this site. No reason its here. Babasalichai —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babasalichai (talk • contribs) 04:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to add information on corporate responsibility reports

Kate Benkoski with Waggener Edstrom Worldwide once again. I'd like to include the following line in the present section: The agency released corporate responsibility reports in both 2008 and 2009.

It will include the following reference link: http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/wes-rotz-corporate-responsibility-report-is-part-of-our-story_b5094. Once again,I'd love help from any neutral editors and community members. Thank you Kabenko13 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Since there don’t seem to be any objections, I’m going to go ahead and make this addition. Thanks Kabenko13 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Section on awards

Kate Benkoski with Waggener Edstrom Worldwide once again, I'd like to add the following to a new section entitled awards (please note all will be linked and referenced) :

In 2011, the agency won PR News Digital PR Awards’ PR Firm of the Year: Digital and was named by PR News as a Top Place to Work in PR. The agency also won Bulldog Stars of PR’s Large, Digital and Technology Agency of the Year awards as well as the Grand Prize: Communications Agency of the Year. At the PR News Platinum Awards the agency won an award for Product Launch for the launch of Microsoft IE9 and was named a finalist for Large Firm of the Year and Global PR Campaign for Microsoft IE9. CEO, Melissa Waggener Zorkin was announced as an inductee into the PR News PR People Hall of Fame and named to PRWeek’s US Power List. In addition, Senior Vice President Mark Martin was named one of PRWeek’s 40 under 40. Waggener Edstrom Worldwide won a European SABRE award in Real Estate & Construction for its work with Green City Energy & Rau Larmschutzsysteme. The agency also won numerous awards, including the Web Marketing Association’s Best Music Website WebAward and three W3 Awards, for its work on the redesign of the Sasquatch! Music Festival website.

Previously, the agency was named to PRWeek’s Editor’s Choice: Who to Watch List in 2010[2], called out as a “digital frontrunner.” The Holmes Report also named Waggener Edstrom as the Technology Agency of the Decade in 2010. In 2009, the agency was named Public Relations Agency of the Year in North America by the Internal Business Awards [3]. The agency’s WE twendz service has received awards including PRWeek’s PR Innovation of the Year Award (2010) [4], International Business Awards Best New Product/Service of the Year (2009)[5].

Kabenko13 (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I think experienced and/or knowledgeable independent editors should assess this section for encyclopaedic validity and possible bias. Tom (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Any advice on getting an independent editor to take a look? Open to feedback/edits/changes but haven't had much luck in getting editors to look at it. Kabenko13 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of old information

I’m Kate Benkoski, I work as a Communications Specialist at Waggener Edstrom Worldwide, I wanted to reveal my bias in order to respect the neutral point-of-view of Wikipedia. I understand that Wikipedia typically frowns on individuals editing their own organization’s page however, I hope to work with and learn from the community to improve the content of the page without marketing or promotion. To start, I suggest removing the two paragraphs in the Present section that note recent hires and departures, as they all refer to 2009 and are likely no longer considered recent. I welcome help from any neutral editors and community members. Thank you.Kabenko13 (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there don’t seem to be any objections, I’m going to go ahead and remove the section. Thanks! Kabenko13 (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I am re-inserting this information. Because the information is old, we value it more, not less. Corporate 01:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Storage

I am moving the following sections here to the Talk page for storage:

The excessive Awards section is stored here for reference and has been replaced by just two awards mentioned in a Vault profile that seem to suggest they are significant.

Awards

In 2011, the agency won PR News Digital PR Awards’ PR Firm of the Year: Digital and was named by PR News as a Top Place to Work in PR. The agency also won Bulldog Stars of PR’s Large, Digital and Technology Agency of the Year awards as well as the Grand Prize: Communications Agency of the Year. At the PR News Platinum Awards the agency won an award for Product Launch for the launch of Microsoft IE9 and was named a finalist for Large Firm of the Year and Global PR Campaign for Microsoft IE9. CEO, Melissa Waggener Zorkin was announced as an inductee into the PR News PR People Hall of Fame and named to PRWeek’s US Power List . In addition, Senior Vice President Mark Martin was named one of PRWeek’s 40 under 40 . Waggener Edstrom Worldwide won a European SABRE award in Real Estate & Construction for its work with Green City Energy & Rau Larmschutzsysteme . The agency also won numerous awards, including the Web Marketing Association’s Best Music Website WebAward and three W3 Awards, for its work on the redesign of the Sasquatch! Music Festival website . Previously, the agency was named to PRWeek’s Editor’s Choice: Who to Watch List , called out as a “digital frontrunner.” The Holmes Report also named Waggener Edstrom as the Technology Agency of the Decade in 2010. In 2009, the agency was named Public Relations Agency of the Year in North America by the Internal Business Awards . The agency’s WE twendz service has received awards including PRWeek’s PR Innovation of the Year Award (2010) , International Business Awards Best New Product/Service of the Year (2009).

This seems more appropriate for an article on Pam Edstrom, rather than the firm, but someone else may disagree - I am iffy on it.

Controversy
Agency partner Pam Edstrom's daughter co-wrote a book on the inner workings of Microsoft in 1998. As a long-time PR representative for Microsoft, Edstrom said it made her uncomfortable and encouraged her daughter not to write the book. She did anyway.

Corporate 22:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

unused citations

CNBC video Siegriest, Lindsey (March 15, 2011). "Waggener Edstrom previews Social Graph tool". PRWeek. Retrieved November 4, 2012. Liesse, Julie (November 29, 2010). "Content Creators". Advertising Age. Retrieved November 4, 2012. "Waggener Edstrom Worldwide". 2010 Agency Business Report. PRWeek. May 1, 2010. Retrieved November 4, 2012. Shah, Aarti (April 10, 2010). "WE formalizes interim leadership changes". PRWeek. Retrieved November 4, 2012. Lewis, Tanya (December 18, 2009). "A book launch gets a social twist". PRWeek. Retrieved November 4, 2012. Bussey, Cathy (July 29, 2009). "Careers: Balancing more than the books". PRWeek. Retrieved November 4, 2012. Gordon, Rose (June 25, 2009). "Interview: Matt Reid, Waggener Edstrom". PRWeek. Retrieved November 4, 2012. "Waggener Edstrom's Portland committment hasn't altered". November 23, 2003. Retrieved November 4, 2012. "Waggener Edstrom Worldwide inks 70,000-square-foot deal". Portland Business Journal. June 25, 2007. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Cleaver, Joanne. "Relationships Key To Tech Biz." Marketing News 33.25 (1999): 17. Business Source Complete. Web. 5 Nov. 2012.

Requires login

[1][2][3][4]

Update

I'm done with my first run-through and asked User:Eclipsed if he woudln't mind giving me a second pair of eyes. I've also asked Waggener if they can provide a logo on a transparent background and other images, any factual corrections, any sources for the '80s and '90s etc.. I'll see if anyone else has comments and circle back. Corporate 03:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh - I didn't think the WIRED incident was actually controversial. It was sort of portrayed as something cutsie and with reasonable speculation that it was done intentionally, but I don't have strong opinions on it. I tend to think something is controversial primarily if there is a debate to document with numerous viewpoints. Corporate 14:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If the event was notable for this company (and it probably is, based on coverage of the event from the The New York Times, PRSA, TechCrunch, etc.), then seems better in the controversy section, rather in the history section as it was before. As for allegedgness, reasonable speculation -- all WP:OR at the moment, and would need much better clarification before using such descriptive and provocative wording in the article. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 14:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Corporate 15:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So once I started searching, actually found a lot of coverage/commentary on the event. Bunch of refs already added to article, here's some more for review:

• 101 Dumbest Moments in Business - 16. Microsoft's PR firm, CNNMoney
• Email exposes hard drive for good PR, The Syndey Morning Herald
• Transparently compliant, Gawker
• Fred Vogelstein takes a bit of time to get his point across, Gawker
• Channel 9 Unwired, eWeek
• Microsoft Spins Wired Magazine?, CBS News

-- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 15:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I'll take a crack at it, unless you're already planning on doing so. Corporate 16:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the stock answer is: everyone should feel free to edit at anytime, WP:NORUSH ;) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 16:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Besides it needing an image, do you think it's ready for a first-review for GA? There are a lot of good images on Glassdoor, but I think they are copyrighted. Corporate 22:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ready for a first GA review. For the images - most photos in company articles seem to be of the corporate offices or related buildings, wiith no identifiable people in the image. There's one exterior office shot in that Glassdoor profile that might be useable if the proper licensing is done. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 10:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Waggener Edstrom Worldwide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 14:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be conducting the review for this article. I'll do a preliminary assessment first, then we will move onto the template. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I also have a little more experience with GA articles since I first nominated it. I'll go through your feedback and improve the article shortly. CorporateM (Talk) 14:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done with round 1. Some of this I should have been able to identify myself before GA nominating, so I appreciate your patience. CorporateM (Talk) 16:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!Retrolord (talk) 14:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Regarding you getting permission for that picture, if the employee provided it willingly in the knowledge it would be used for this purpose isnt that permission enough? Would this qualify as fair use? This is what I have: Me: "This one: WISE 2011 021.JPG looks like a good replacement for the current somewhat poor image. Is Waggener willing to donate the image to Wikipedia under this free license? If so, I'll go upload it and advise on what we need from you RE license permissions." "Kate: Yes, please let me know next steps." I'll see if it passes muster with OTRS. I could also just put the original image from Flickr back-in until we get licensing approval from Waggener. CorporateM (Talk) 14:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Probably better to do that just so we can get this through. Article is fine with the old picture. Put the old one back and aslong as i don't see anything else i'll pass it. Thanks! Retrolord (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)  Done CorporateM (Talk) 13:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.