Talk:Wikipedia for Marketing Communications Professionals (Bookshelf)

From Outreach Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Recommendations and questions on leaflet:

-Do we want to add Google Search option. I recommend against it since it might project our preference for one search engine over anotherAradhanar 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-Do we want to provide RSS feed as a Tip? Is this feature consistent in Wikipedia? Is this feature maintained?Aradhanar 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scenario 3
Need your help to flesh out the sectionAradhanar 16:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scenario 4
Can editors simply add to the list of Requested Articles? Do they need to be registered to do that?Aradhanar 16:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I worry about conflict of interest and have left a note on the en Conflict of interest noticeboard talk page about this. I also think the leaflet needs to do a better job on conveying the policies on neutral point of view, verifiablity, and use of reliable sources information - see the second pillar at en:Wikipedia:Five pillars:

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.

Thanks for posting your comments and concerns. I'll try my best to address these based on my current understanding of the project and deliverables. The objective for this page is to collaborate and collect data from wikipedians as yourself to help define what should comprise the leaflet without compromising any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Having said that, it is obvious that corporate communication teams keep a close watch over the online presence of their organization. And yes - it is preferred they do not edit their page themselves because of conflict of interest. But at the same time, could they in anyway help the accuracy of the article? Expecting good intentions, what if the article about their organization has infact a factual error which has gone uncorrected? Could they recommend new/missed sources to contradict or support data to the community and request for the edit, for example? This is just one idea, there might be others. What we want to do is to collect such thoughts and ideas. If the leaflet can be a ready reference for corporate communications professional - what is OK/ what is not on Wikipedia aligned to their professional world - I think we have met our goal. This is a challenge but hopefully we will be able to come up with a broad guidelines so that they know what is the correct and transparent thing to do in Wikipedia ecosystem. Please note that generic information which is true across targeted audiences, such as five pillars or NPOV would not fall under this leaflet.Aradhanar 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the proposed leaflet says "Mention the source - financial reports etc." Now a financial report is a primary source and so would not be the independent, third-party sources recommended in en:WP:RS. WHy not mention a newspaper article or book as a source? Ruhrfisch 18:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to edit the wiki page with your recommended sources. The information I have placed is just to get us to start collaborating and sharing.Aradhanar 20:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents[edit]

I have had very little time to review the Outreach work lately, so I am sorry for bringing this to your attention so late in the process. Anyway, for me as a professional writer/story editor and a long-time Wikipedia workshop leader, this leaflet is a little too vague to be of real use for most companies. I still don't have the time to go through the entire text and wash and tweak it, so I'll just bring up a few points that I think will improve it. I hope that this will inspire others to improve it further.

  • the entire text will cover approximately four A5 pages, i.e. a normal leaflet. The structure of it, as it stands now, is:
    • Basics
    • Scenario 1: Is my organization on Wikipedia?
    • Scenario 2: How can I correct wrong information?
    • Scenario 3: Help! Someone has deleted article on my organization
    • Scenario 4: My organization is notable but not on Wikipedia

That means that each section will take up roughly 4/5 of a page, which is a non-intuitive way of doing it. One header and one section per page is the norm. Avoid spilling over from page to page, especially across page breaks.

  • The topics do not correspond very well with the talking points further up in the document, which are the very questions that people and companies ask. Therefore I suggest changing the topics to:
    • "the problems" - deleted article, bad stuff in article, etc - and the reason why they should care
    • [supraheader] the solution, step 1 - [header] "go to talk page", add sources, ask people nicely, etc
    • [supraheader] the solution, step 2 - [header] "talk directly to other users", finding out who did what, asking them nicely,
    • "how you should do it" - the ideal way for you = write a featured article (donate pictures, add sources, add criticism, add content, etc) - and be prepared to be in this for the long haul (compare it to how you wouldn't get a phone number and then not answer the customers' calls)
  • the first sentence should grab the audience. I suggest something in the lines of "Want to make sure your company is presented in a good light in Wikipedia, the biggest encyclopedia in the world and the first stop for most of your customers? This leaflet will show you the beginnings of a strategy."

I think that covers most of the big problems. If there are any questions, your best chance of reaching me is by mail: lennart(at)wikimedia.se.//Hannibal 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to help improve corporate communications leaflet. I am not sure how far we can go to restructure this particular deliverable since we are already close to sending it for design implementation. Besides, the current format has been vetted by atleast 15 other stakeholders already and to restructure it would push the project behind by another two weeks (since it would need to get validated by others again). However, I am working hard to incorporate your thoughts as much as possible within the current framework (for example, improvement in the introductory lines).
Also, I understand that the term leaflet has a specific meaning in Europe (and hence A5 pages reference in your comment). I wanted to let you know that as of now we have not defined the exact form of each deliverable. Leaflet for us is just a generic term for a short burst of information for a targeted audience. Thanks again and I look forward to working with you on Bookshelf! Aradhanar 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from JAW[edit]

Hi folks - read Lennart's edits and just so you know I've taken some liberties and just edited the text directly. This is a topic I've spent a lot of time with PR/marketing folks discussing, and I've had more than a few face-to-face encounters with really concerned people about one or dozens of WP pages.

In general I think it's a pretty good start. I've added some of the really basic stuff I tell PR professionals all the time - mostly things that respect the fact that they do not have time to become editors, but they just "need to get this fixed asap." I'd say this is more written for the PR professional who is looking to invest time in becoming a smart contributor - and I think you should keep that focus. If someone is in a huge rush, their best bet is to email the help desk. We could add a section at the top that says this, but then it wouldn't be serving the need of bringing people in as better, more informed editors.

My major concern is directing anyone to take on a task they just won't be able to handle. RfD and other stuff is pretty high level. Often PR folks are more concerned about fraught information -in- WP, not when nothing is there. If your article is deleted, isn't it usually for a pretty good reason? I think the best advice is for them to restart the article and take it from there - keep it small, stub-like, learn about discussion and history, and find a WP friend or peer in the company.

It has me thinking that a better and new bookshelf piece to consider might be "how to talk to Wikipedians" - or something a bit more aptly named, that discusses the myriad ways to reach out to Wikipedians for a variety of reasons - remove deletions, get help, ask a simple question, get an opinion etc etc. Just a thought :) JayWalsh 00:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit required[edit]

The project page tells me not to edit, so here I am to inform you that the final bullet point under "talking points" says:

  • Is there someone else in your organization who has already edited Wikipedian?

...it should say "Wikipedia" not "Wikipedian". --Bodnotbod 14:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to 'common questions' required[edit]

The text reads:

How can I find if my company is notable to be listed in Wikipedia

I think it should read:

How do I learn whether my company can have a page about it or not?

...or something like that.

Later on, the text reads:

Wikipedia accounts are intended for an individual to use, not a group or section. If you're creating an account, create it for you and not your company. You can use your own name or any other pseudonym, but don't use a name that implies a group of people are editing.

I have a problem with this. We've already told them not to edit as a group, so why are we telling them not to use a name that implies that they are? It seems to me that a likely outcome of this piece of text is that people will edit as a group, they will just name themselves such that they go under the radar. That is not what we should convey. So I think that part should end with the word 'pseudonym'.

Argh! The next bit says "If your intent is only to edit in one subject area (your company or client) then you should be direct." then the very next bit says "avoid actively editing your organization article".

This project page needs re-opening to editors. Please tell me you haven't printed anything yet. It's at best confusing and at worst damaging at the moment. --Bodnotbod 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. This page is not near being finished. In fact, we are having a meeting about soon about where it will go next, so do not fear: it isn't ready for printing for a while.//Hannibal 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bodnotbod, Ahhh...I think I know why you sound frustrated...the points you list above are not part of the core text. You basically provided feedback on raw content i.e. content gathered while interviewing various subject matter experts for this topic. In general, when you arrive at a particular Bookshelf deliverable page (this or any other), please go to Content development (or Content) subheader if you want to view what content we are editing as the final text. It is this content that the key stakeholders review and this is the content that will finally go for printing (after series of reviews and copyedits). The Talking points and other subheaders are provided to help contributors such as yourself to understand the overall purpose and design approach. Having said that, based on the latest stakeholder review, the scope of Wikipedia for Marketing Communications is being revised. We are moving from a more job tool oriented approach (seen currently under Content Development subheader. Note that the information provided is bulleted) to a more narrative format. You will see this page modify shortly. It would be wonderful if you could revisit the content development section for this deliverable and suggest other aspects/perspectives that we might be still missing. I hope this helps! Thanks for your feedback, Aradhanar 22:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lennart's run-through of Sept 13[edit]

I moved any comments here, after I had finished with them:

  • And they will.  a little early for this self aggrandizement Chvaza - removed
  • edit  lots of articles on Chvaza 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Wikipedia?  [the previous edit makes it clear that Diane is a general Wikipedian, not just for her company's clients. was this the intended meaning?] Chvaza 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) - a bit shorter and more to the point[reply]
  •  correcting factual errors Chvaza 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) or aligning Wikipedia to your current marketing message. - used this completely[reply]
  •  [it is too soon for this statement, before you've clarified what type of editing is "ok" or "less suspicious" from a member within the organization.]Chvaza 20:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC) - added this above this comment which rendered this moot[reply]
  •  you should let the Wikipedia method work and trust the community Chvaza 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC) - accepted[reply]
  • Another example is the  policy standards Chvaza 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)   that determine if a subject should be included Chvaza 00:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC) in Wikipedia. If your company hasn't been covered by  respected Chvaza 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC) media, it may not warrant an article. - removed this to make it shorter[reply]
  • Also,  remember that Wikipedia is not to be used for marketing or advertising Chvaza 02:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC). - accepted[reply]
  • Use the article's  [is this tip about writing on the discussion page or article page? This tip sounds like it is ok to write about yourself or your organization.] Chvaza 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC) - rewritten[reply]
  •  The fundamental step to participating in Wikipedia is:

Become a trusted member of the community by creating a Wikipedia account. Chvaza 02:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - accepted[reply]

  •  User accounts suspected of being shared by multiple users Chvaza 02:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) for a single purpose may be blocked.  [explain how to create an account] Chvaza 06:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - accepted and fleshed out[reply]
  •   When you are logged in to your account, article pages display with additional clickable items. One of these items is the star next to the search box. Click the star to add the article to your watchlist and to be notified of changes made to the article. Chvaza 02:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)  [Aradhana -how is one notified?] - fixed[reply]
  •  [vandalism hasn't been defined in this piece] Chvaza 02:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - fixed[reply]
  • Your contribution might be removed if it is not cited correctly.   [again here it sounds like it is ok for someone to edit an article about their own organization] Chvaza 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Everything you include in a Wikipedia article should be referenced to a previous publication – either an internet source or a traditional print publication. Wikipedians generally do not consider lesser-known blogs to be viable sources of information. - rewritten[reply]
  • Engage with contributors in a civil discussion. This might result in someone making the change for you. If you make the edit on yourself, communicate clearly about your activity on Discussion.  [now it's clear how someone can edit an article about their own organization] consider a rewrite of 2 and 3 to clarify the recommended steps] - removed
  • to correct the article. [ this is repetitive. move the list idea into item 2 above.] Chvaza 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) Also, the community tends to trust users who are open about their affiliations.   [move this idea into item 3 above] Chvaza 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)  [if last two edits accepted change title to Five things...] Chvaza 04:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - I believe this new wording makes it more clear that we are talking about two different things[reply]
  •  [deleted ref to corp website, whether the image is used there or not doesn't have an impact on this point does it?] Chvaza 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - removed[reply]
  •  as well as other topics. Chvaza 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - accepted[reply]
  • and have great tools that automate the most common edits. - removed
  •  [patterns of what sort?]Chvaza 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) So if you want to make it easier for yourself and maybe get a better response  [response to what?] Chvaza 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - fixed[reply]
  •  critical of your organization or contrary to your position. Chvaza 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - fixed[reply]
  • You should rather keep the article short, since longer articles automatically draw negative information.  [the relationship between length and negative "information" isn't clear. Also was is negative information? Do you mean biased information, or negative reactions?] Chvaza 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - removed and rewritten[reply]
  •  [does directly here mean -yourself-? ] Chvaza 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC). - not precisely, but I have removed it[reply]
  • That may result in Wikipedians  preventing Chvaza 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC) the page from being created in the future. - accepted[reply]
  • 4. Be open about your connection to an organization while editing its article. When you have a personal connection to the subject you are editing, your contributions will be scrutinized much more closely than other edits. We recommend you be open about your affiliations. - removed the entire section, since we've mentioned this before
  •  [the scenario section needs an introduction. Just a sentence of two is fine. I didn't write one as I know that once section titles are made I'm not supposed to create additional titles.] Chvaza 06:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - I added a section and an introduction[reply]
  •  First and most importantly: Remain calm. It is very easy to become agitated when communicating with people only through the internet. Remember that outbursts are recorded permanently. If you communicate in an in an angry or aggressive manner you risk being temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. This will only harm your cause. Chvaza 06:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - accepted[reply]
  • If you have tried the five things above, and still believe you aren't being heard, there are other actions you can take to correct false information. - removed this to make room for more accurate version
  • and follow the instructions. [I tried this. This paragraph makes it sound like there are actual instructions there, but really there is a lot of information. If there are two or three methods for comments detailed on that page, explain that here and indicate that each option has instructions that can be used, if that's the case.]Chvaza 06:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - rewrote[reply]
  •  [does sign refer to signature? does this insert the user's name? or do you mean -close- with this tag?] Chvaza 06:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - explained earlier[reply]
  •  [what do you do with the email approach? Who reads that? ] Chvaza 06:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - fixed[reply]
  • follow the instructions.  [once again, lots and lots of text on the page that displays. maybe say what the user will find there or what to look for. Lots of the information looks like things they would have already tried if the followed the information in this brochure up to now.] Chvaza 06:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - agreed, but that is not my fault. There is no easy pages on conflict resolution. I rewrote it a bit though[reply]
  •  [of the article? or their corporate website?] Chvaza 06:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - fixed[reply]
  •  When you are ready, search the article title. If the article does not exist, you will see the article title in a red hyperlink. Click the hyperlink. Now copy the article content from your test page and paste it to the article page. When you are ready, save the page to make your article content visible to everyone. Note: do we want to mention that there's a "move" command? --Frank Schulenburg 20:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC) - fixed[reply]
  • Search: Wikipedia: Request for deletion.   [why? what will I learn there?] Chvaza 07:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - okay, removed[reply]
  • Contact the Wikipedian who deleted the article by clicking on the link to his or her Talk/Discussion page.  [for what purpose?] Chvaza 07:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC) You may also go to Wikipedia: Help desk. Ask politely for a more detailed explanation of the reason and cite sources that clearly explain why the organization is notable. - rewritten[reply]
  •   As a marketing communications professional, part of your job is to promote your organization in a positive and productive manner. Working effectively within Wikipedia will serve that goal. Due to the conflict of interest, you should avoid editing an article on your organization. Chvaza 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC) - accepted[reply]

Last rewrites[edit]

 How about: "Why you should participate on Wikipedia?" It's not a list of reasons, but it's close enough.//Hannibal 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE -- This section has the potential to anger Wikipedians. Are we encouraging PR people to stick with their argument, or harass individual editors, even when it's been rejected? We should put a lot of thought into this section.

Moving talking points and other stuff here[edit]

[Moved here by Hannibal 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Talking points[edit]

  • Wikipedia is a massive, social project with established norms, policies, and best practices. The culture of 'good editing' is upheld by trusted Wikipedians from all over the world. Editors are passionate about these topics and want to ensure information is of the highest quality and free of biased influence.
  • 'Neutral point of view' is probably the most important of all of the policies on Wikipedia. Contributors should be free of bias on the topic they're writing about or editing, and contributors should be transparent about possible conflicts of interest. If you're editing an article about yourself or your organization, you will not be considered to be coming from a neutral point of view.
  • Even though you may have a conflict of interest, you are still able to participate in the discussion about information, contribute sources and facts, and generally support a balanced view on an article or topic.
  • Think hard about whether it's appropriate to list your organization on Wikipedia. Doing it poorly — or trying to do it before it's deserved — can result in serious negative backlash.
  • Your organization must have multiple non-trivial news stories to be listed.
  • Check first! — there may already be a page about your client that just needs to be updated.
  • Is there someone else in your organization who has already edited Wikipedia? Reach out to your organization's internal audience to see if there's already an expert who can guide you.
  • IMPORTANT CONCEPTS TO BE ADDED (Jimmy Wales' thoughts on the topic)
    • Respect the community. They are not your enemy. They want to get it right. Ask questions and always be friendly.
    • Avoid suggesting puffery. A Wikipedia entry is not your PR piece, so accept that it will be neutral.
    • Wikipedia is all about reliable sources. Make sure that anything you ask the community to add is backed up by sources.
    • Very carefully! Wikipedia is very firm about neutrality. Best is to identify yourself openly on the discussion page.
    • The community is passionate about quality, but quality is hard to achieve. Always looking for help!
    • But even as things change, deep principles remain the same. Be honest, open, friendly, and clear.

Common questions[edit]

  • Am I even allowed to edit Wikipedia? It says 'anyone' but I'm not sure I'm welcome at all.
  • What's the most important rule or policy I should be aware of?
  • How can I correct errors against my organization's listing?
  • How can I make relevant changes if I meet unqualified resistance from some contributors?
  • How can I find if my company is notable to be listed in Wikipedia?
  • How do I start my organization's page? What structure do I use? Are there any reference entries I can visit?
Recommendations:
1. We create one/more recommended content structures for ready use
2. We lead new contributors to external reference links. For example, Frederic Lardinois, Read Write Web (below )
  • If you plan to contribute in anyway on Wikipedia, you should start by creating a Wikipedia account.
  • Wikipedia accounts are intended for an individual to use, not a group or section. If you're creating an account, create it for you and not your company. You can use your own name or any other pseudonym, but don't use a name that implies a group of people are editing.
  • On the account's user page you can transparently list information about yourself. Some users don't add a lot of information, others add hundreds of facts and details. If your intent is only to edit in one subject area (your company or client) then you should be direct. Most Wikipedians contribute broadly in many ways — consider adding a note to your user page that explains you're just learning and you may contribute more in future.
  • As a company representative, avoid actively editing your organization article but keep a watch on the article.
  • Use the article's discussion (or 'talk') page to present your facts.
  • If you disagree about the facts of an entry, be open about being associated with the company, recommend the source that validates your data on the talk page, and let the community change it.
  • Before you edit an article in which you might have a conflict of interest, let editors know on the talk page that you intend to make edits after a certain period of time elapses. Give them the facts or links on the talk page, and give the editors a chance to correct errors on their own before you dive in.
  • If no one updates the article before your deadline, make the change and mention in the notes the steps you followed. Mention the source — financial reports, etc.
  • Be open about tough facts, rumors, or disputes or issues about your organization (or its products) or your client. In some cases, information that is unpleasant, but widely and publicly documented, may never be removed. Handle disputes about this kind of information the Wikipedia way — provide sources to counteract the facts presented. Don't forget to use the article's talk page for such discussion. If you need to, create a new section within the talk page.
  • Address questions like, "What can I do if:
1. There is wrong information about my organization
2. Someone has deleted the article on my organization
3. My organization is notable and I would like to see it on Wikipedia
4. If the article is incomplete and I have updated information to include in the article
  • Sensitize corporate communications professionals on the tremendous amount of effort Wikipedia editors put in to contain the mass attempts to use Wikipedia for advertising. In general, the better new editors understand the every day challenges of our community, the better they can adjust their own behavior.

Links to resources[edit]

[/moved here by Hannibal 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

About creating article yourself[edit]

[moved here by Hannibal 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Another way is to create the article yourself, but not make it public until experienced Wikipedians have taken a look at it.

1. Create an account. Follow the link at the very top of any Wikipedia page: Log in/Create an account.

2. Click the link to your userpage (your user name) at the top of the page. Write about yourself and disclose your affiliation and conflict of interest. Somewhere in the page, write [[/test]]. Click Save page.

3. After you save the page, you will see a new red link on your page: "/test". Clicking this link will lead you to a personal workspace, where you can write articles without much risk that they will be deleted. Other Wikipedians will generally let you work on an article in this "test" space without much interference, but they can see your work; this can be useful if you want to seek feedback.

Be sure to include the following three elements to the new article:

  1. Summary of the topic
  2. Reason why the topic is notable
  3. Reference to at least one credible source about the topic

Do not forget to click Save page when you are done.

If you want to write a better article, you may wish to look into adding these things:

  1. Information box where the reader can find data on the organization's headquarters, revenue, number of employees, etc. See "Template:Infobox company"
  2. Links to other articles, pictures, and sources. See "Wikipedia:Manual of Style"
  3. Information about the history of the organization, its business strategy, governance, and so on.

Using graphics and tables can make a big difference. You will need to include any well-known negative facts or controversial issues, in order to create a balanced article. If you do not include all perspectives, other contributors will add that information. See "Wikipedia:Featured article criteria" for the standards you should strive for.

4. Find an experienced Wikipedian by going to the relevant WikiProject. Ask nicely on the Wikipedian's Discussion/Talk page if he or she can take a look at your article.

When you are ready, search the article title. If the article still does not exist, a large banner will say so. Then you can use the Move tool. Go back to the test page, and click Move. Then fill out the name you want to move the article to. Please double-check your spelling before you click Move page. [/moved here by Hannibal 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)][reply]

Retrieved from "https://outreach.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikipedia_for_Marketing_Communications_Professionals_(Bookshelf)&oldid=6125"