Wikipedia talk:Paid Operatives/Sandbox-Jimbo talk

Proposal: Write a policy for the editing Political articles by Paid Political Operatives

Reworking the following in order to also have mention of Paid political Operatives in the Mix. USED: J N 466 18:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC) on User:Jimbo Wales talk page[reply]

Let's write a guideline or policy on how to manage the editing of political articles pertaining to a campaign for elective office. The formulation of that policy is something that Wikipedians with a present or past Campaign/PR job should be able to contribute to like anyone else. This should define:

what information any article on a campaign for election should contain
what sort of information may be added based on primary sources, and what sort of information requires secondary sources
1. name of ediotrs that will be editing (or requesting editing assistance)... can be sourced thru campaign sourses, e.g. the campaign website
2. court cases should require secondary sources, as in biographies of living persons (no direct citing of court documents without secondary source)
disclosure rules for PR professionals and company staff (e.g. use your real name, state who your client or employer is on your user page)
what sort of information self-disclosed PR professionals are not just welcome, but requested to add and keep up to date, based on company sources – things like the name of the current CEO, location of the company headquarters, officially reported financial figures etc.
guidance on neutrality, balance, coatracks, attack pages

We should also create a noticeboard where Campaign managers and staff can flag articles that have gone wrong, and can help to work out fixes, AFTER CONSENSUS HAS BEEN ACHIEVED WITH OTHER EDITORS, to then be implemented by another Wikipedian who has no ties to the campaign in question.

We have to accept that our cxampaign articles, just like our BLPs can go wrong. We've responded to the BLP problem with the BLP policy and the BLP noticeboard, but the Paid Operatice professionals effect on political articles creates the need for a policy and an associated noticeboard that would require ethical engagement by self-identified campiagn operatives in very clearly circumscribed areas, that will keep our articles accurate and up to date.Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Guidelines]] and Wikipedia:Companies, corporations and economic information.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength, I am aware of these pages. They are moribund, and completely inadequate. --J N 466 19:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/COI. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC is a mess. The only clear result is that neither forbidding all PR editing nor allowing it has any consensus support. The sensible thing is to allow it where it makes sense, to forbid it elsewhere, and to create a structure that allows PR professionals to raise legitimate complaints, just like BLP subjects are. Companies are people too. --J N 466 19:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]