Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-07-02/In the news

In the news

Public relations on Wikipedia: friend or foe?

Conflict of interest guide

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR), a British association of public relations professionals, has released the first version of a conflict of interest guideline in collaboration with Wikimedia UK (WMUK).

Paid editing has long been a contentious topic on Wikipedia. The Signpost has reported on the topic many times in the last several years, like the MyWikiBiz debacle ("Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down" [2006]), Microsoft's attempt to monitor articles ("Microsoft approach to improving articles opens can of worms" [2007]), issues surrounding diploma mills ("Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits" [2007]), and a public relations firm's edits ("The Bell Pottinger affair" [2011]), but it received its most substantial treatment in 2012, with "Does Wikipedia Pay?", a series of interviews with paid editing supporters ("The Facilitator: Silver seren", "The Consultant: Pete Forsyth", and "The Communicator: Phil Gomes"). The short answer is that paid editing has traditionally been severely discouraged on Wikipedia, but recent attempts by the public relations industry to forge links with Wikipedia have garnered some support for the idea, though it is far from a consensus.

“	[W]here there is a clear conflict of interest created by the relationship between the public relations professional and the subject of the Wikipedia entry, such as a client or employer, they should not directly edit it.	”
—Jane Wilson, CIPR CEO

After the Bell Pottinger incident, CIPR and WMUK began a collaboration to draft 'best practice guidelines' for public relations professionals' relationship with Wikipedia's articles. The CIPR guidelines demonstrate the fruits of this, as the document has much in common with Wikipedia's own conflict of interest guidelines and was developed on the Wikimedia UK wiki. Among its most notable provisions is the highly visible and repeated stipulation that public relations professionals should not directly edit articles they have a conflict of interest with except in extremely limited circumstances, along with its recommendation to "operate within the system" and a step-by-step guide to addressing problems in a topic they are being paid to correct.

Statements from the association also reflect the Wikipedia guideline's influence: "The main theme of the guidance is quite simple – where there is a clear conflict of interest created by the relationship between the public relations professional and the subject of the Wikipedia entry, such as a client or employer, they should not directly edit it. Such an activity would be unethical and lacking in transparency and therefore potentially against CIPR’s own guidance on digital communication and social media" (CEO Jane Wilson). The Wikimedia Foundation, through its head of communications Jay Walsh, also reacted positively, saying "CIPR's basic message, ... that PR folks editing Wikipedia directly is problematic, echoes what we hear from the community of Wikipedia contributors. Those who come to Wikipedia with a clear conflict of interest are generally going to face real challenges in terms of editing and contributing to the project."

There is some resistance to the guidelines as they currently stand, however. The Public Relations Society of America released a statement praising the CIPR-WMUK collaboration, yet cautioning that working within Wikipedia's guidelines is not their ideal solution, and collaboration with entities like the Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement is needed (see previous Signpost coverage on CREWE).

The association plans to release future versions as the guidelines mature and receive more attention from Wikipedians and public relations professionals. (more information in the Holmes Report, Mediabistro; CIPR guidelines)

In brief

Australian political scandal moves on-wiki: Despite the Health Services Union expenses affair's diminishing popularity in the "real world", the Sydney Morning Herald has reported on edit wars revolving around the articles relating to the scandal. After the article was published, one Wikipedia editor commented that they had "one good thing [to say about that Fairfax article. It seems to have silenced those Wikipedia editors it suggested may have conflicts of interest.]"

← Previous "In the news"

In this issue

2 July 2012 (all comments)

In the news

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

This draft is actually linked from the Signpost. Some mistake surely. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you meant my mistake in forgetting to remove {{Signpost draft}} from the article. Sorry about that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CIPR has the right idea. There are no genuine improvements a PR professional could want to make that can't be done without directly editing the page. A little extra patience and effort to follow that rule is all it takes to improve the situation 100x. User:King4057 12:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC) (EthicalWiki)[reply]

I've been solicited twice already to write stuff into wiki to promote. One was OK (Consumer Reports) prob clean motive. The other NOT clean drug rep, and how did they get my email address??

Scary too that stuff has vanished from my talk. Gone as though it never happened. I wanted to recontact as requested the Wiki Foundation guy posted special survey about my experiences re strange edits suggesting follow the money conflicts. Nobody in wiki like administrators should have the power to make text vanish. Nobody should have the power to warn or block re edit war unless under strict rules (3x for ex).

I almost quit already once when an editor undid HOURS of my work researching then writing clean re cancer green tea health benefits claiming that a very (simplistic) FDA statement was better than pubmed research so much so he claims / enforces complete deletion! But then come back because one of my best friends DIED from "prostate cancer". Actually bad doctoring. I look for solutions.

I recommend a global ban on conflict of interest evidenced by edits specifically that are biased. Foundation level board. Bias is easy to show in scientific topics. See how Yobol, adjkasi, and jmh649 sent me to irrelevant wiki pages to support their claims. Look how they immediately appeared and undid my edits giving irrelevant advise and links. My edits were well intentioned though neive now better getting better. Look how they tried to scare me off from entering new facts (Cochrane) demanding that I prove cochrane is peer reviewed!! Look how they diluted the final texts in several ways, though they monitor maintain the original shown was worse by their own edits, or reverted back, or burried key words and sentences.

PS be nice if this page had spellcheck. I type fast as I speak, and read a page in a slow glance, but fixn spelling takes more time than orig text.32cllou (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PSS Why not write software to identify conflict of interest in articles. Find articles that are not fixed to new obvious update info though editors constantly monitor, plant changes that would cost an industry $$ and see what happens who makes follow the money changes, find articles with poor structure made that dilute $$ interests, find articles w few editors always there and monitoring, and review their edits for conflict, and find tag team editors like the three above maybe. Got a friend knows how to write that software, used to edit here, might work for free.32cllou (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: doing it for free since 2005.

Home

About