That's not entirely fair, for several reasons: Until recently, the Contact Us page and the pages you were directed to when you wanted to report a problem were an absolute maze:

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 10:31 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: You may have noticed that I don't like the idea of Usmanov's biography being sanitised, and posted on its talk page to that effect. But this is a completely different matter from the way Wikipedia handles complaints. Wikipedia gets anonymous contributions that spin just as well as the best PR companies, only negatively, and there must be a way for justifiably aggrieved biography subjects to get some satisfaction. Francis Ingham, the guy who made that comment about Wikipedia's cumbersome and opaque complaints system, is the PRCA director-general, and he does not work for Finsbury as far as I know. And it so happens I and Tom Morris here for example said exactly the same thing about the complaints system until a few weeks ago – until Oliver revamped the whole thing. That still doesn't mean every OTRS e-mail will get a prompt reply, but it's a step in the right direction. Andreas _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

On 14/11/12 05:51, Doug Weller wrote: slide (I speak from my own personal experience). On the other hand, "PR Industry"..... Gordo ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.w… WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

wrote:

wrote:

Hello all, I thought you might like to know that I spoke with the journalist from PR Week yesterday about the story they published on this issue. They are keen to include it in their print edition, which goes out tomorrow. The main points: - I reminded him of the existing guidelines that Wikipedians, Wikimedia UK and the CIPR worked on and recommended the guidelines to his readers - I explained that COI doesn't just apply to PR professionals, but to everyone. We aren't making PR a special case in that respect - Wikipedia is a collaborative, voluntary project - nobody owns the content - I also made the point that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a PR platform. I was asked if I had any specific response to the PRCA comments, but really there's nothing helpful to add there, except that talk pages and emails needn't be cumbersome. If anyone has any specific concerns and would like to discuss them, I'm more than happy to discuss this, on or off list. Thanks and regards, Stevie

On 14 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: mainly) Since the worst BLP I know about falls in that class, I'd have to agree with the statement, to the extent that there is a problem. On the other hand the PR issue is more about high-notability articles. No deletionist approach is a remedy to the Usmanov scenario, is it?

With respect, that does seem to be an entirely different issue.

On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Charles Matthews &lt;charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com&gt; wrote: Sorry, I am not following you. How has it been addressed in 2012?

On 14/11/12 12:55, Charles Matthews wrote: Does the WMUK VLE exist? Gordo ______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l<http://mail.w… WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-f…

Thanks for your email Andy. I've already requested they correct that error. With regards to your point about COI editing - the guidelines the CIPR refer to were developed with WMUK, some Wikipedians and some people from CIPR and PRCA. The development took place on the WMUK Wiki and was widely shared and people were encouraged to participate. Regardless of whether there is a total prohibition on editing article spaces directly in EN:WP policy, we have seen (many, many times) that when PR professionals directly edit article space bad things happen. Even if edits are benign and factual, if it comes to light that they were made directly by PRs acting on behalf of a client, nobody wins and a COI is automatically assumed by many. It's not good for trust in Wikipedia, it's not good for the PR industry and it's not good for their clients. If you'd like some more background on the development of the guidance, a good place to start is at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR Thanks, Stevie On 15 November 2012 10:51, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK +44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Do you think that's a bad thing Andy? On 15 November 2012 11:36, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; wrote: -- Stevie Benton Communications Organiser Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

The guideline always struck me as coming from the direction of "this is how to avoid making the news" rather than "this is how to engage with Wikipedia".

I'm ambivalent about the CIPR guidelines; I'm concerned about how often I see the Wikipedia guidelines misrepresented. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk On Nov 15, 2012 11:40 AM, "Stevie Benton" &lt;stevie.benton(a)wikimedia.org.uk&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.

Thanks for the additional info; I'm familiar with the history. My point is that - for whatever reason - the CIPR guidelines are stricter than Wikipedia's own, and we need to be mindful of that.

I note that it is claimed (and I don't doubt) that the "CIPR [...] guidance for PROs [is that] they should not directly edit Wikipedia pages relating to their organisation or a client". I should like people to be mindful that that's not what en.Wikipedia's CoI guidance says; there has never been consensus for a total prohibition (though I acknowledge that some feel strongly that there should be).

Hello everyone, PR Week have published another story on this - http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1159715/wikipedia-defends-editing-processes-f… Basically, it's a defence of Wikipedia's editing policies quoting the CIPR and yours truly. Do let me know if you have any comments or questions. Thanks, Stevie

CIPR CEO Jane Wilson added: 'I recognise that it can be a frustrating process for any organisation with inaccurate information on the site. 'Wikipedia is working on the speed and ease with which simple factual inaccuracies can be amended without compromising the strong stance on conflict. I look forward to the CIPR working with the community more closely on this.'

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Gordon Joly &lt;gordon.joly(a)pobox.com&gt; wrote: You cannot compare the tripe that gets put into Wikipedia with the occasional error that might slip through in Britannica or the ODB. It's worse than the worst tabloid, and that will remain so at least until Wikipedia has flagged revisions.