As this is the PR industry, why should Wikipedia editors expect that this Statement is anything but PR?

Fair question. I think the answer will be in what happens afterward. This statement has always been intended as preamble to additional efforts by participating agencies and, we hope, a new or renewed conversation with the Wikipedia community.

Wordsmithing aside, what do you think the Statement is trying to accomplish?

It's always been a great source of frustration for me, on both a personal and a professional level, that every time Wikipedia and public relations are in the news together, it's for all the wrong reasons. To this day, when I tell someone about our Wikipedia services, I often have to note that we follow Wikipedia's rules in the first sentence, lest they think otherwise. That's why I decided to convene the Donovan House group and why I believed a public statement by the top communications agencies was a valuable project. I want more people to realize that there can be cooperation between honest agency representatives and self-respecting Wikipedians.

In this role of meeting organizer, did you see yourself acting as a Wikipedian, or a Communications professional, or some hybrid of the two? I suppose I'll ask it cynically: which side were you on?

I am definitely the hybrid model. I got started editing Wikipedia the same year I moved from journalism to a social media marketing agency. I don't think it is impossible to be both at the same time, although if a client asks to do something that Wikipedia rules prohibit, we will not help them do that. We are very clear when new clients approach us: we're going to do it the right way, or we're not going to do it at all.

Why was it necessary to have an invitation-only, closed door meeting? Isn't that against the spirit of transparency?

The idea is to find a balance between open and closed, so participants are willing to be honest and not fear they will later have to answer for an unpopular opinion. After all, minds can change, and a free exchange of ideas is necessary to work through controversial topics such as paid COI on Wikipedia. Just a few weeks ago, myself and two other participants at the Donovan House meeting held a panel discussion at WikiConference USA where we described the topics we talked about that day, and gave a brief preview of this statement. In August at Wikimania we will be doing the same.

Were the four Wikipedians present at the meeting in some way "representing Wikipedia"?

The Wikipedians who joined, and those I invited but were unable to attend, were only asked to come as individual members of the community representing only their views. However, I specifically sought out individuals with a longstanding commitment to the community and who would have credibility on the topic.

Do you think the Statement goes far enough in acknowledging the harmful acts and bad actors that the PR industry has contained or concealed, such as Wiki-PR (related Signpost coverage: "Extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed")?

This was probably the biggest challenge we faced in agreeing upon specific wording, and a good illustration of the balancing act this kind of "interfaith" project requires. The view was expressed by some on the agency side that they were wary of being seen as "apologizing" for the actions of other companies, whom they may or may not consider to be industry colleagues. On the other hand, there was a view from the Wikipedia side that context needed to be established, otherwise the statement would seem to be avoiding the obvious.

Were there folks from the PR industry who wanted to put more of the blame on Wikipedia's processes (edit request timeliness, outdated financial data, etc.)?

I love Wikipedia, but no one in their right mind would say everything works well all of the time, and I think this is especially true on company articles. I am proof that the Bright Line can work, but whether it works well is a matter for reasonable debate. Certainly responses are not always timely, articles fall out-of-date regularly, and it's frustrating that following the Bright Line means refraining from even ostensibly uncontroversial changes. It requires a lot of patience and, to borrow a phrase from Pema Chödrön, one must be comfortable with uncertainty.

If there is to be a long-term change in this situation, Wikipedians will have to reconsider some aspects of their own community culture as well, so in the final wording we note that it has been a "challenging" relationship. If Wikipedia was easy for outsiders to work with, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The difference is now we have a framework for helping to get it right.

Are PR companies expecting something in return for this gesture? What is it that the PR industry wants?

We are careful not to ask for anything specifically of the Wikipedia community in the statement, and readers should take note that it says the PR industry is open to a renewed dialogue, not that there is an expectation Wikipedia must reciprocate. We're planning for additional projects that participating agencies can do to continue educating themselves and their colleagues on Wikipedia, to develop formal processes for handling client requests. I expect there will be Wikipedians who are interested to help, but as with anything in this community, it will be self-selecting, and contributors will have differing views about what's best.

How did you come up with the idea of an in-person meeting? What was it like getting so many companies to the table, and then to agree to something in writing?

It was frustrating to see that, following the venerable journalistic principle of "if it bleeds, it leads", most discussions about Wikipedia and paid contributors focused on the bad actors. The experience of holding the meeting so was certainly interesting; when I started out, I had no idea if I would find enough interested participants, but I soon realized that this was a topic that many PR agencies were interested in—after all, it's an issue they've struggled with for a long time. We had people fly in from Chicago, Kentucky, and as far away as London. I had no idea how difficult it would be to find agreement on wording for a statement. It did take us a few months, and we went through about seven or eight drafts, but eventually we found a version that had wide support.

Who are these firms and what kind of influence do they wield in the PR industry? Are you missing any major players?

At present we have five of the top 10 global agencies and all but one of the top 10 agencies based in the United States. These agencies represent more than a billion dollars in fees annually, are some of the largest and best-known agencies in the world, and we have a handful of mid-sized agencies, too. Our goal here is to create a new industry standard for best practices that agencies large and small will follow.

At a time when the community (and the WMF) has taken an ever-stronger stand against paid advocacy do you think the Wikipedia community will take the Statement as a sign that it's time to collaborate, or rather that it's 'winning' and shouldn't relent in the slightest?

First, I see no reason why this can't be "win-win". Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game. Second, I think the community and WMF should ask themselves what "winning" looks like. If it means driving PR people off Wikipedia entirely, that's not at all realistic. Neither Wikipedia nor PR is going away, and Wikipedia is simply too important in shaping public perceptions to be left alone entirely. However, if WMF and the community want to reduce the number of paid editors violating official rules and community norms, it's important that there be a path available to those who want to do the right thing.

You are paid to provide guidance to companies when they want to engage with Wikipedia. What has been your role in that? Did the experience somehow lead to this meeting?

Definitely, my experiences over the past few years—both positive and negative—have greatly influenced this initiative. Back in 2008 I was still unsure how well professional services around Wikipedia would be received. Jimmy Wales's Bright Line declaration in 2012 effectively carved out a safe zone: it made clear not just that "paid advocates" should stay out of mainspace, but Talk page involvement was explicitly approved. I found that it was indeed possible to represent clients and be successful by appealing to Wikipedia editors' goals of creating a better, more accurate, well-rounded encyclopedia. Meanwhile, Wikipedia itself has come a long way: there are more professionals involved with Wikipedia than ever before. So I think Wikipedia is in a place where this conversation is much more possible than it was even a few years ago.

You've mentioned to me that the most important part of what you tell clients is basically, "No, Wikipedia doesn't work like that." Can you give me some examples and your philosophy about educating clients?

You name it and clients have asked for things they can't have. And they're oftentimes things that seem entirely reasonable to them. "Verifiability, not truth" is a constant pain point. Oftentimes it's not clear how much information about various controversies should be included in articles, and that becomes a topic for discussion first with the client and then on the Talk page. This is especially a challenge on technical articles, on financial topics, and also regarding lawsuits. We have to do our due diligence in researching the topic, come to our own conclusions, and then find a way to satisfy editors and clients alike.

Even if the statement is sincere, and endorsed by the top management, how does it actually get implemented and executed? What teeth does it have to actually make an impact (e.g. at the employee level)?

It's a challenge to communicate best practices through an entire agency, particularly on a topic relatively niche as Wikipedia. But it's important that they're now making an effort to do so. The statement includes a bullet point stating that, where breaches of Wikipedia rules may occur—and I think it's almost a certainty that someone at a participating agency will screw up in the future—then these companies pledge to take appropriate action, consistent with their HR policies, as they would with any other breach of Internet ethics.

There has been some talk on mailing lists of a hypothetical third-party organization that could field requests and complaints from parties with a COI. Is that idea on your mind? How would it work, who would fund it?

It's definitely an intriguing concept, and I think it could be one possible long-term solution to the problems that Wikipedia and PR people both face now. If there was a way to create an ombudsperson type of role for one or more people to review suggestions (from companies or PR agencies or anyone) and make a fair judgment on what should be done, that'd be a good place to be.

So, how does the Statement go forward? Does it spark a conversation? Are there next steps? What is to make it actually amount to something useful?

Am I ever interested to find out! I think there is a big opportunity here. I hope it leads to more agencies making reasonable requests of Wikipedia, and that the community responds and puts more resources toward answering these kinds of requests. I think we're closer to the beginning than the end at this point, but I'm very pleased that we've made it this far already.

Reader comments

2014-06-11

Questions raised over secret voting for WMF trustees

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Tony1

Last week we reported the announcement of two new affiliate-selected WMF trustees. The board of trustees is the most powerful and influential body in the movement, and chapters have been permitted to select two of the 10 seats since 2008, for two-year terms that start in even-numbered years. Last January, the WMF board granted thematic organisations a vote (there is as yet only one "thorg"); the third affiliate category, user groups, are not part of the process. Frieda Brioschi from Italy will return to the board after a term in 2007–08, and Patricio Lorente from Argentina will continue for a second term. One notable feature of this year's election was that only 27 of the 41 eligible affiliates voted. This almost certainly affected the outcome, since the second-placed candidate of the two, Frieda Brioschi, won over incumbent Alice Wiegand by just "a handful of votes", a point made by election facilitator Chris Keating.

On 9 June the Signpost wrote to Keating and the other two election facilitators—James Hare and Lorenzo Losa—asking which of the 41 affiliates did not vote—and what preferences were cast by those that did—under the assumption of openness and transparency about the process. Keating declined both requests on the basis that "according to the selection process, votes are cast in private", and pointed us to where the matter had been discussed "a bit" on Meta.

This "bit" comprised two short posts on 17 January—Laurentius: "Do we want to have a public vote or not? The current draft prescribes a public vote on Meta. ...". James Hare: "Holding the vote on the chapters wiki is a better idea. ...". Eleven hours later, Hare changed the resolution that would go to chapters for endorsement, so that it stated that the vote would be held not in public, on Meta, but on the private chapters wiki. It appears that this change was endorsed unquestioned, although that process itself was conducted in secret among whatever affiliates might have participated. By contrast, the candidate statements and Q&As for the election were in public, on Meta.

In response to the Signpost's question, "what have the affiliates got to hide?", James Hare told us that "the purpose of the private ballot is to allow votes to be cast without fear of reprisal. ... no one is suggesting that an open ASBS vote means that people will get killed over their votes. Regardless we have a duty to pick the best possible candidates to represent the interests of the Wikimedia Foundation. We have decided as a group that the best way to do this is by doing so out of the view of the candidates." He continued:

“

[Some] affiliates have posted their votes on their wikis and you can freely ask them for links. ... Other organizations have acted in favor of privacy, and their wish should be respected. ... It is up to the individual affiliates to determine whether they want to be transparent. In all honesty, we encourage you to talk to them. / What do we have to hide? We have to hide votes. That is our final word.

”

We should point out that in the previous election two years ago, not only which chapters voted and how they voted, but the identity of candidates, were explicitly restricted to "members of chapter boards"; chapter members did not even have the right to know how their elected representatives voted on their behalf, a rule that one Wikimedian who was a chapter president at the time told us "was quickly disregarded". While Wikimedians at large are still shut out of the system, for chapter members the secrecy provision has morphed into a messy situation in 2014: some chapter committees publish their votes, and others do not. Keating linked us to WMUK's detailed disclosure to their own members and anyone else, even setting out the preferences of each individual board member: "1. Alice 2. Patricio 3. Frieda 4. Anders." James Hare, who is president of Wikimedia DC, linked us to its May minutes (a document that suggests a high level of professionalism in the chapter). Item 12 discloses an equal-first preference for Lorente and Wiegand, and equal-second for Brioschi and Wennersten.

A brief survey we conducted revealed that at least some, possibly many, chapter committees do not inform their members. For example, Ichsan Mochtar, head of Wikimedia Indonesia's board of trustees, told us that the chapter committee followed what it understood as the rule, "that it was a secret ballot". Stepping aside from his role in the chapter, he said, as a Wikimedian "I personally have no problem having either an open ballot or another close ballot the next time we do this. As long as the choice is agreed by the majority of the affiliates." Wikimedia Australia appears to have published no records of committee meetings since February. The Signpost tried to check the published committee minutes of several other chapters, including Wikimedia Italia, but found that access is blocked to non-members.

The day after our initial email exchange with Keating, he opened a thread on Meta, Reflections on the process, which has sparked discussion about a number of issues surrounding the election, among them openness. Ziko van Dijk, chair of Wikimedia Netherlands until March 2014, wrote: "I would not mind to know which organisation supported which candidate. When was the secrecy introduced, is it a requirement of WMF?", to which Keating replied, "I suspect that in a number of cases, it's a reflection of an organisation lacking the capacity to participate (there are still some very small chapters). In other cases, it might be because organisations feel that there is no need to get involved in the 'politics' of the movement."

Aschmidt, who seconded Ziko's request for more openness in the election process, suggested that this scenario might give the bigger affiliates "an even larger say in the process which again strengthens their influence vice versa the smaller affiliates in the long run because they are not represented properly on the board. I think, those affiliates should either be adequately supported in order to provide them with sufficient manpower and expertise to become viable members of the movement, or we should think about reducing the number of affiliates to those who are really fit to act responsibly and who are able to come up to the expectations the community puts in them." On the other side, one participant wrote: "The primary reason for keeping votes secret in most voting systems is to prevent reprisals. It would therefore be consistent that chapters who voted be listed as having voted but the votes remain secret."

The Signpost asked all four candidates for their views on the low turnout, secrecy, and whether chapter memberships should be involved in the vote. Patricio Lorente was unaware of which affiliates didn't vote, or why: "the turnout is pretty lower (in percentage) in community elections and in either case, if the process was conducted properly and anyone with voting rights was duly informed, I don't think it is accurate to talk about a loss of legitimacy."

Anders Wennersten told us: "I have no problem with only 27 of 41 about 2/3 participating and believe it more reflects that some affiliates are not wellworking, and not a problem with the process as such or the legitimacy of the result". Although he didn't agree with WMUK's disclosure of individual board members' preferences, he said: "why the votes from the different Board[s] cannot be made public I do not understand and it is against the culture of Wikipedia ...". Wennersten had "no problem with the outcome" of the vote, but was highly critical of the "in-person" meeting of candidates with affiliate participants at the recent Berlin conference, attended by only two candidates, with one on skype and one unable to be present at all. Planned recording/streaming was abandoned for technical reasons. "I feel it made the whole election process unfair," he wrote.

Alice Wiegand wrote to the Signpost:

“

... there are good reasons to keep some stages of the process closed, for example to have a chance to exchange and discuss first thoughts without any commitment. But a movement like ours, so much dedicated to openness and transparency, should be able to create a space where it is natural and convenient for any eligible association to present their eventual preferences and results. And talk about it, learn about respective criteria, wishes and needs. ... it is rightly left to the respective Boards how they find their preference, but they should at least inform their members about their decision. The turn-out of this vote worries me, ... Obviously we have affiliates which can't participate, or do not want to participate, or just don't care. ... This and even more should be discussed with a broader audience, not only within the Board.

”

She believes wider issues about board membership need to be discussed widely: does it reflect all movement needs, do affiliate seats provide more diversity, and are twice-yearly changes to board membership reasonable? "That's what we should ask ourselves rather than only picking out one single part of it ...".

We received no reply from Frieda Brioschi to an email sent three days before publication.

Reader comments

2014-06-11

Politics, ships, art, and cyclones

Contribute  —  

Share this

•  E-mail
•  Facebook
•  Twitter
•  LinkedIn
•  Reddit
•  Digg

By Pine and Adam Cuerden

This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from 1 June 2014 through 7 June 2014. Anything in quotation marks is taken from the respective articles and lists; see their page histories for attribution.

Featured articles

Five featured articles were promoted this week.

• 1880 Democratic National Convention (nominated by Coemgenus) "The 1880 Democratic National Convention met June 22 to 24, 1880, at the Cincinnati Music Hall in Cincinnati, Ohio and nominated Winfield S. Hancock of Pennsylvania for President and William H. English of Indiana for Vice President in the United States presidential election of 1880." "Hancock and English were narrowly defeated in the race against Republicans James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur that autumn."
• Kronan (nominated by Peter Isotalo) "Kronan, also called Stora Kronan, was a Swedish warship that served as the flagship of the Swedish navy in the Baltic Sea in the 1670s. When built, she was one of the largest seagoing vessels in the world... After four years of service, the ship foundered in rough weather at the Battle of Öland on 1 June 1676: while making a sharp turn under too much sail she capsized, and the gunpowder magazine ignited and blew off most of the bow structure." "Its exact position was rediscovered in 1980 by the amateur researcher Anders Franzén, who had also located the 17th-century warship Vasa in the 1950s. Yearly diving operations have since surveyed and excavated the wreck site and salvaged artifacts, and Kronan has become the most widely publicized shipwreck in the Baltic after Vasa. More than 30,000 artifacts have been recovered, and many have been conserved and put on permanent public display at the Kalmar County Museum in Kalmar."
• Sega CD (nominated by Red Phoenix) "The Sega CD, released as the Mega-CD... in most regions outside North America, is an add-on CD-ROM device for the Sega Genesis video game console designed and produced by Sega as part of the fourth generation of video game consoles. The add-on was released on December 12, 1991 in Japan, October 15, 1992 in North America, and 1993 in Europe. The Sega CD lets the user play CD-based games and adds extra hardware functionality, such as a faster central processing unit and graphic enhancements. It can also play audio CDs and CD+G discs." "By the end of 1994, the add-on had sold approximately 2.7 million units worldwide, compared to 29 million units for the Genesis sold by that time. In 1995, Sega began shifting its focus towards its new console, the Sega Saturn, over the Genesis and Sega CD. The Sega CD was officially discontinued in 1996. Retrospective reception to the add-on is mixed, praising the Sega CD for its individual offerings and additions to the Genesis' functions, but offering criticism to the game library for its depth issues, high price of the unit, and how the add-on was supported by Sega."
• Greed (nominated by Deoliveirafan) "Greed is a 1924 American silent film, written and directed by Erich von Stroheim and based on the 1899 Frank Norris novel McTeague. It stars Gibson Gowland as Dr. John McTeague, ZaSu Pitts as his wife Trina Sieppe and Jean Hersholt as McTeague's friend and eventual enemy Marcus Schouler. The film tells the story of McTeague, a San Francisco dentist, who marries his best friend Schouler's girlfriend Trina. Shortly after their engagement, Trina wins a lottery prize of $5,000. Schouler jealously informs authorities that McTeague had been practicing dentistry without a license and McTeague and Trina become impoverished. While living in squalor, McTeague becomes a violent alcoholic and Trina becomes greedily obsessed with her winnings, refusing to spend any of it despite how poor she and her husband become. Eventually McTeague murders Trina for the money and flees to Death Valley. Schouler catches up with him there for a final confrontation." "Greed was a critical and financial failure upon its initial release, but by the 1950s it began to be regarded as one of the greatest films ever made; filmmakers and scholars have praised it for its influence on subsequent films."
• Russian battleship Peresvet (nominated by Sturmvogel 66) "Peresvet (Russian: Пересвет) was the lead ship of the three Peresvet-class pre-dreadnought battleships built for the Imperial Russian Navy at the end of the nineteenth century. The ship was transferred to the Pacific Squadron upon completion and based at Port Arthur from 1903. During the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05, she participated in the Battle of Port Arthur and was seriously damaged during the Battle of the Yellow Sea and again in the Siege of Port Arthur. The ship was scuttled before the Russians surrendered, then salvaged by the Japanese and placed into service with the name Sagami... Partially rearmed, Sagami was reclassified by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) as a coastal defense ship in 1912. In 1916, the Japanese sold her to the Russians, their allies since the beginning of World War I. En route to the White Sea in early 1917, she sank off Port Said, Egypt, after striking mines laid by a German submarine."

Featured lists

One featured list was promoted this week.

• Ralph Richardson, roles and awards (nominated by SchroCat) "Sir Ralph Richardson (1902–1983) was an English actor who appeared on radio, film, television and stage. Described by The Guardian as "indisputably our most poetic actor", and by the director David Ayliff as "a natural actor ... [who] couldn't stop being a perfect actor", Richardson's career lasted over 50 years. He was—in the words of his biographer, Sheridan Morley—one "of the three great actor knights of the mid-twentieth century", alongside Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud." "After seeing a production of Hamlet starring Frank Benson, Richardson decided to become an actor and made his stage debut, playing a gendarme in The Bishop's Candlesticks in December 1920." "Richardson won many awards for his performances on stage and screen... including a BAFTA award for The Sound Barrier; an Evening Standard Award for Home, which he shared with John Gielgud; and a special Laurence Olivier Award. His final film, Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes—for which he received further critical plaudits and award nominations—was released after his death."

Featured pictures

Twelve featured pictures were promoted this week.

• Venus and Anchises (created by William Blake Richmond, nominated by Hafspajen) Anchises is the father of Aeneas, hero of The Aeneid. Venus was his lover, and Aeneas' mother. This painting by William Blake Richmond is a gorgeous , glowing depiction of mortal and goddess, Venus springing out from the painting in a blaze of light colours over a much darker background.
• Tower, west gate and east gate of Taman Sari (created and nominated by Chris Woodrich) Taman Sari is a partially-ruined royal garden and palace complex in Indonesia, dating from the 18th century, originally hosting elabourate hydraulic works to fill complicated systems of pools and fountains.
• Alaskan parchment scrip (prepared and nominated by Godot13 from the collections of the National Numismatic Collection at the Smithsonian Institution) Alaskan parchment scrip was a currency in use in the Russian colonies in North America, originally printed on parchment, later on seal skin and walrus hides. It was a form of company currency, only redeemable at company stores, and came about due to the Russian-American Company being given a legal monopoly over the Alaskan fur trade.
• Structure of a Supercell (created by Kelvinsong, nominated by EuroCarGT) A supercell is a type of thunderstorm marked by the presence of a deep, constantly rotating updraft in the centre known as a mesocyclone. This structure creates a large area of possibly extremely severe weather which can dominate the local weather patterns for up to 20 miles (32 kilometres).
• The Art of Painting (created by Johannes Vermeer, nominated by Hafspajen) A complex allegorical work showing what is believed to be the artist, Johannes Vermeer in his studio, the various objects are arranged to form allegorical commentaries, such as a map of the Netherlands with a crease between the north and south, representing the division of the Netherlands between the Hapsburgs and the Seven Provinces.
• Springtime (created by Claude Monet, nominated by Armbrust) Springtime is an 1872 painting by Claude Monet depicting his first wife, Camille Doncieux, beneath a lilac bush, reading.
• Marsh frog (created by Marie-Lan Nguyen, nominated by Pine) The marsh frog (Pelophylax ridibundus) is the largest frog native to Europe.
• WonderSwan, WonderSwan Color, and SwanCrystal (created by Evan Amos, nominated by Chris Woodrich) A Japan-only handheld gaming system, noted for its technical accomplishments, and for having, for a time, managed to win a significant, albeit minor, portion of the handheld market from the then-ubiquitous Gameboy.

Featured topics

One featured topic was promoted this week.

• 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season (nominated by User:Hurricanehink and Jason Rees) The 1990–91 South Pacific cyclone season was a particularly inactive one, with only three named cyclones, Cyclone Sina, Cyclone Joy, and Cyclone Lisa (which did not make landfall and does not have its own article). With two good articles, a featured article, and a featured list, this is one of the smaller featured topics, but covers the subject well.

---

• 
  Swedish warship Kronan, the subject of a featured article.
• 
  Johannes Vermeer's The Art of Painting, a featured picture
• 
  Alaskan parchment scrip issued by the Russian American Company, a featured picture

Reader comments

If articles have been updated, you may need to refresh the single-page edition.

What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.

Home

About

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions