Wikipedia talk:Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement

For CREWE members

I'd love to hear your feedback on the article. A reminder to keep editing within our WP:COI guidelines and to remain neutral while providing good, independent, reliable sources. If any editors with a conflict of interest in this area would like to make changes, I'd be happy to review them. Or, perhaps we should have a conversation about whether editing this article directly is appropriate. One final reminder, this talk page is not a general discussion page for the topic of paid editing. There are other places for that such as WP:WikiProject Cooperation's Talk page. Please keep it civil; we share a common goal I believe, even if reaching it will require some back and forth. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty neat to see my own blog post cited on Wikipedia, but I wonder if we couldn't make it more clear that the Wikiproject and CREWE are two separate initiatives. The PRSA defines CREWE as a lobbying effort to make Wikipedia more accepting of direct edits by PR people. This is VERY different from the Wikiproject. I wouldn't want the reader to think the Wikiproject is "CREWE on Wikipedia". Not that it says as much now, but just think we could add clarity. The Wikiproject was started as a result of criticisms of WBToo's editing and as a response to the paid editing watch. These two events happened to coincide during the same time period. King4057 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is neat. I honestly didn't know Social Fresh was your blog... Do you think it qualifies as a reliable source? An independent one? This is a good test-case for our Verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline. Two, how do you think we could make the distinction between CREWE and WikiProject collaboration more clear. Would just adding the word separate before WikiProject be sufficient? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How's this?

"Around the same time CREWE was started, a separate initiative called Wikiproject Cooperation was founded on Wikipedia[12] to provide education, oversight and collaboration to opt-in paid editors.[13] [Can we cite the Wikiproject itself as a reference?] It includes a help page, links to documentation and instructions for companies looking to make factual corrections.[12]

I think this text also makes it comply with timeless language, avoiding quotes and avoids using opinionated language like "useful" (I happen to believe they are, but...).

This statement isn't "likely to be challenged" and no longer includes quotes (see When a reliable source is required). It is also not a self-published weblog and this post demonstrates a good personal record for fact-checking. Since there is no policy for Blogs as Sources I think it does qualify, though I am surprising myself by saying so. It turns out there's a few Wikipedia articles that also cite SocialFresh articles. I guess one of the transformations that impacts Wikipedia is that many blogs are more reliable (and even more well-read) than mainstream media. King4057 (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I should disclose I have a ridiculous COI. I'm the author of the blog post, a member of the Wikiproject, a rudely ejected former member of CREWE and I would like to distance the Wikiproject from association with lobbying efforts for direct editing. COI x10. King4057 (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you clashed with CREWE. I suppose, since I joined CREWE shortly after I wrote this article, that I too now have a conflict of interest. I suppose I get a little more leeway as a long-time non-COI editor. I updated the sentence to read: Around the same time CREWE was created, a separate group on Wikipedia called WikiProject Cooperation[15] was started to provide education, oversight, assistance, and collaboration to paid editors. I think that works. What do you think? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Works for me! Thanks. King4057 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Notability

How exactly does this come anywhere near meeting WP:GNG? The only independent source providing significant coverage is the Forbes article, but that isn't sufficient for a stand alone article. It seems more sensible to me, to create a paid editing of wikipedia article (or something like that) instead. That would also allow us to remove some of the undue content in Bell Pottinger and Portland Communications. SmartSE (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Forbes, Techrepublic, and Prweek.com are solid. Socialfresh and OdwyerPR are industry sites. I accept that it's notability is not ironclad, but I think it meets the minimal bar and should improve over time as well. I'd like to get others opinions about that, if you aren't persuaded. If you have a serious problem with it, feel free to AfD and we'll talk it through there. Worst case scenario I just stick it in my userspace and wait to see if more press comes up. I do agree that a paid editing of wikipedia article is an excellent idea and long overdue. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's something that we at least need to wait on. All of the coverage occurred within the past two weeks. That makes it likely more is to come soon. Waiting a few more weeks before merging or AfDing or whatever won't hurt anything. Silverseren^C 18:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think 'wait for an AfD so we can see if more sources come up' floats, but I do think it has a decent chance of passing AfD. If someone wants to delete it, I'm fine with having that discussion. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing notability in a random Facebook group -- I'm seeing Wikipedia notability, i.e., notability due to its relevance only to Wikipedia. I suggest this content be significantly stripped down and merged into one of the numerous articles about Wikipedia. --Lquilter (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Credit Where Due

{{Request edit}}

Glad this is up here.

One nit. I only built the CREWE page and gave it its nifty, pun-compatible acronym. Credit for the idea to make a public space on Facebook goes to John Cass, director of marketing, NewLogic, Inc. --12.176.230.9 (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Phil, that you? Per usual, we're gonna need some sort of reference for that. Silverseren^C 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Eeeek. Sorry. Thought I was signed in. Was indeed me.

Reference is in the Jan. 13, 2012, interview on For Immediate Release at " time-index 6'49. --Philgomes (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If you believe in ethical editing rather than pressuring as people have been saying, why did you kick King out as he mentioned at the top of this talk page, when he's probably the most well known for actually trying to engage with Wikipedia (such as he got a lot of attacks from some people) from the start - way before CREWE...

wp:Conflict of Interest does explain things pretty concisely, I'm not sure how it can really be misunderstood?

I didn't kick King out. In fact, John and I were chatting that we hadn't heard from him in a while. --Philgomes (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

As you noticed just now, Template:Request edit does automatically place the article in a category to try grab attention from neutral parties, but it doesn't seem to be very used, maybe the article needs to be clearer about encouraging people to do that and encouraging other people to monitor the category more in the same way that people patrol new pages and recent edits in general --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC) (The Wikipedia Review)

As I told you before, King was continually promoting himself in the group, which was why he was kicked out. It's as simple as that. Silverseren^C 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

David King (user:King4057 here) was "promoting" in what way? Like this stuff by the rest?

1. "A few weeks ago I posted about a survey I’m conducting sponsored by Page Center _link_"
2. "Ya'll will be interested in this guest post on my blog _link_"
3. "Jack O'Dwyer: Here's an excellent historical column .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_"
4. "Robert Lawton: I think this is an excellent summary of the current state of affairs: Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia by Gerard F. Corbett _link_ — Gerard Francis Corbett likes this."
5. "Jack O'Dwyer: A PR problem is confronting the PR industry .. O'Dwyer's Public Relations Blog _link_"
6. "Blog by the CEO of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, updating on our progress _link_"
7. "Jack O'Dwyer: Here's my blog today _link_"
8. "I interviewed ... _link_"
9. "Jack O'Dwyer: I'm urging the PR Society.. _link_"
10. "Phil Gomes: Phil Gomes' Thoughts _link:_"
11. "Jack O'Dwyer: ...Here is a link to my blog"
12. "Some of my own thoughts _link_"

Claire Thompson seems to have it spot on:

The phrasing of that piece makes me want to step outside of this group. "One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on Fortune 100 companies. Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles." It sounds hugely self serving and probably explains why people view PRs as a bunch of paymaster's puppets, which is exactly why a source like Wikipedia is so needed and so valuable. I've always believed that the first principle of PR is working out what motivates the people you want to influence and find the thing that lets everyone win. By trying to 'win' without giving anything away, I don't think you/we have a cat in Hell's chance of doing anything other than getting Wikipedia to dig in its heels

Then we get lovely stuff like this earlier on before it swung into "lets show our best face for the Wikipedians" mode:

"Robert Lawton: Those who follow the rules don't get noticed. 3 February at 14:31 · 5 Likes: Jeff Taylor, New Media Strategies — Adam Harris Berkowitz, NYU — Fred Bauder, Crestone, Colorado [who should know better] — Kris Gallagher, Northwestern University — John Cass, Boston, Massachusetts"

Then in reply, David King who you banned said: "I have a PPT slide I call "the wall of shame" with about 20 major brands who have all been busted for inappropriate censorship on Wikipedia. My experience has been almost every PR person breaks the rules, but most of the time for disclosure, puffery, etc. and not for censorship. The Wikiproject outlines a major PR agency that censored their clients' executive fraud scandal. It's more common than you think and the volunteer community is extremely forgiving. Almost every client I get has some kind of history of trying to do it themselves, but not following the rules." 3 February at 18:27

Claire Thompson's comment "There seems to be a time delay between stuff being written and appearing in this forum" again gives the impression this was a political thing. David King's posts seem to have disappeared after posting this article encouraging PR people to act GENUINELY ethically by Wikipedia's policies, and I notice he linked to wp:PSCOI a few times too. I scoured down to the posts from nearer the creation of the group before things started to be cleaned up for PR, you were sloppy... --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} (The Wikipedia Review — no affiliation to DK or GK, by the way, we are just more open to varied viewpoints.)

What the heck are you talking about "who you banned" and "you were sloppy"? You seem to be under the severe misconception that i'm in charge of the CREWE group when i'm just a member. And I can't make heads or tails of what you wrote and quoted, because of the way you formatted it.

I had nothing to do with King getting banned, I was just informing you about what happen. Silverseren^C 22:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I know. Stop acting as though you speak for them then, they can defend themselves, that is disruptive to proper discussion. :p

I'll wait to see if I get any reply. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 22:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A Little Diplomacy

Mistress does have a legitimate complaint about the neutrality of the article. Primarily being that the obvious Criticism or Controversy section that articulates the counter-points from participants in the Paid Advocacy Watch is inaccessible due to the lack of media coverage. This is particularly painful since most of the citations were written by or (presumably) facilitated by CREWE, creating a markedly pro-CREWE article based on the media's depiction.

A few ideas (just ideas):

• Consider adding the Paid Advocacy Watch, since Wikiproject Cooperation is already mentioned.
• Add a line like this if it is indeed kosher to cite Wikipedia policy itself?
• It could be relevant to add information about the PR industry's history of misbehavior, citing the many stories on this and including CREWE's counterpoint that they intend to do the right thing.
• My understanding is that contributed articles can only be used to establish the opinion of the author, not statements of fact. Check to see if that's an issue (or if it's a legitimate issue versus a burdensome technicality)
• You could cite this article (by me) saying that it was "implied CREWE is advocating for editing privileges they haven't earned." This of course gets into the discussion on Wikipedia's lack of policies around blogs.(also a possible issue in current citations)
• Plenty of counterpoints could be mined from the actual Facebook discussions. This is (again) a delicate line and perhaps one we've already crossed. I see Facebook in the citations list, but haven't looked into it.

Just some thoughts.

King4057 (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right that without reliable sources, these criticisms for our purposes do not exist. And the above discussion reads as a lot of infighting between involved editors, which is ironic for a subject where the entire purpose is to properly handle conflicts of interest. As for your specific recommendations:

• Paid Advocacy watch exists, but it was not mentioned in any published sources, like WikiProject Cooperation was.
• Citing Wikipedia policy can be done as a simple reference, but not to synthesize a claim that is not present in reliable sources, namely that CREWE is trying to go against Wikipedia policy. If anything, that is already implicit in the description of CREWE's goals, one of which is trying to change the policy that prohibits/discourages paid editing. I'm not sure I see the need to spell it out explicitly, but we could try and tweak it a little to give a better background. Add, I'm thinking about "Current policy on Wikipedia strongly discourages but does not prohibit editing where an editor has a direct conflict of interest," but I'd like to get a better ref for it that the policy itself.
• The PR industry's history of misbehavior could be referenced if among the available sources on CREWE that history is mentioned. If not, it would be a bit of WP:Original synthesis. In any case, if we added a note about the controversial history of PR editors, it would have to be brief and neutral. I'm thinking about whether/where that might be appropriate.
• I'm not sure what you mean by 'contributed articles'. Can you explain?
• The pr-squared link is a possibility, if we can show it's a respected publication within the PR community. I'm not quite sure how to go about that, but references to the blog from more respected sources would help. I think your quote would make for interesting criticism of PR editing in general, however I'm not sure it applies to CREWE specifically; you don't even mention CREWE in that article!
• Mining individual Facebook discussions would be original research. We can only use primary documents for very basic information, or to supplement what is directly mentioned in a secondary source.

I'm glad the conversation has turned back to editing the actual article. In the future, all editors should avoid getting into a debate over the politics of CREWE; that's simply not what this page is for. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 06:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. A few points to continue the conversation. Consider the following:

• Citation 3 in Forbes was a guest post by a PR person (probably a CREWE member)
• Citation 5 is a link to Newlogic, not a reliable third-party source
• Citation 7 is an op-ed from a PR firm
• Citation 8 is an op-ed by the PRSA
• Citation 9 is a self-published blog post
• Citation 10 is a legitimate authoritative third party source, but the reporter discloses having a multi-year close relationship with CREWE founder Phil Gomes
• Citation 12 is from the Institute of Public Relations
• Citations 13 & 14 are both links to Facebook
• Citation 15 is a self-published blog post by a PR firm
• Citation 17 is a self published blog post
• Even I have to admit citing my blog posts is a bit edgy

I don't mean to pick everything apart. I'm not on some tirade to take CREWE down, but you can see how a participant from the Paid Advocacy Watch could have legitimate complaints that (a) the article is the result of a PR engine and (b) the rules on citations are being stretched only in one direction. Many of the citations are in reliable media, but are actually authored by CREWE members and PR people, rather than neutral editors. It's a delicate line to cite Facebook for certain things, but call others original research. Since it's a PR topic, you'd expect PR sources, but even PRWeek has reporters on staff that cover PR.

It's enough to make my head spin for sure. A Wikipedia article that talks about Wikipedians talking about Wikipedia. I've asked user:OrangeMike if he would weigh in as an experienced (and uninvolved) editor.

King4057 (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy to have an outside editor check up on it. As for the sources:

Citation 3 is by a Forbes contributor, and "seasoned PR/media strategist", which means he's qualified to comment on the issue; that said, there's little commenting in his article, which is mostly just a summary of the debate

Citation 5 is a link to Newlogic, which was only used to verify John Cass' employer

Citation 7 is an op-ed from a PR firm, which is used only to verify the group's existence and confer notability

Citation 8 is an op-ed by the PRSA, which is used to list CREWE's principles

Citation 9 is a self-published blog post, which is used as a primary source only to verify that he wrote an open letter or for direct quotes

Citation 10 is a legitimate authoritative third party source; the reporter's disclosure of Gomes doesn't disqualify him from writing about the subject, it just means we should be slightly cautious to cite his opinions. At most we just give attribution.

Citation 12 is from the Institute of Public Relations, which is used only to identify members of CREWE

Citations 13 & 14 are both links to Facebook, which is the Facebook page for CREWE and is used only to identify the site and link to it's PR plan.

Citation 15 is a self-published blog post by a PR firm, which is used to describe the ongoing projects listed on CREWE's website

Citation 17 is a self published blog post, which is used as a primary source only to verify that he wrote an open letter or for direct quotes

Just to note, that leaves 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, and 16, which I am guessing you think are ok.

My bigger question is where you think the bias in this article lies. It for the most part just reports what different people in the group said or are planning to do, and it doesn't use flowering language to that end. The only thing it's missing is a criticism section, but that's because there's no published criticism of the group, even on Social Fresh (except for this: "It’s so much easier to keep knocking on the door insisting it’s Jimmy’s fault. That he just needs to let us in the door onto Wikipedia’s precious carpet with our muddy sneakers. We’ll have to pay the admission fee in sweat, experience and good manners," which I'd consider adding).

These are copied from my talk page, where King4057 left them as part of a discussion

• This seems like a subtly one-sided statement: "who want to improve the relationship between their industry and the collaborative online encyclopedia" it would be equally valid to say "who want broader editing privileges in Wikipedia." (or maybe something in-between?)

• The History section doesn't have any history in it, nor is one needed for a 1 month old Facebook group. I would suggest shrinking, dequoting and moving to a concise "Justification" section.
• Right after "a pilot project that would allow" we could add an identical sentence to the example I provided from the Wikiexperts article on paid editing policy.
• "Let’s keep an eye on this, especially since Mr. Wales appears to have listened and may be poised to make some concessions to the PR industry." I don't think this statement is actually true. I would concede to citing CREWE members for factual information about CREWE, but not for speculating on Jimmy's perspective, especially when it so obviously contradicts Jimmy's statement.
• I believe a Criticism section could already be constructed, using Jimmy's quote and the comments from my blog you suggested.

King4057's proposed changes

Here's the suggested (see diffs here). This version has both a Justification and a Criticism section. I also shortened quotes on both sides of the debate. I believe this is more balanced as it presents more than one side. King4057 (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

draft

'''Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE)''' is a [[Facebook]] group created by [[public relations]] professionals who want to foster greater involvement by PR professionals on [[Wikipedia]]. Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]]<ref>{{cite news |title=Wiki wars |author=Kaya Strehler |url=http://www.creammagazine.com/2012/02/the-wikiwar-is-on/ |newspaper=Cream Magazine |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> have also joined the group.<ref name=TechRepublic/> CREWE was started by Phil Gomes,<ref name="Forbes">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia & the PR Pro: Friend or Foe? |author=Peter Himler |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/01/10/wikipedia-the-pr-pro-friend-or-foe/ |newspaper=[[Forbes]] |date=January 10, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> senior vice-president<ref name="PRweek">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia: Friend or foe? |author=Kate Magee |url=http://www.prweek.com/uk/features/login/1114954/ |newspaper=[[PRWeek]] |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> at [[Edelman (firm)|Edelman Digital]], in January, 2012 after John Cass of NewLogic Inc.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newlogicusa.com/news/ |title=News | Newlogic, Inc |publisher=Newlogicusa.com |date= |accessdate=2012-02-17}}</ref> recommended the idea to him.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1aRDKadJZg&feature=player_embedded |title=FIR Video Interview with Stuart Bruce and Phil Gomes on PR and Wikipedia |author=''ForImmediateRelease.biz'' |date=January 13, 2012 |work= |publisher=[[Youtube]] |accessdate=February 11, 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Wikiwars? PR pros seek editing rights from Wikipedia |author=Jeremy Woolf |url=http://www.campaignasia.com/Article/288532,opinion-wikiwars-pr-pros-seek-editing-rights-from-wikipedia.aspx |newspaper=Campaign Asia-Pacific |date=January 30, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}{{subscription needed}}</ref><ref name="techdirt">{{cite news |title=Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia |author=Gerald F. Corbett |url=http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?d=2&m=2&y=2012 |newspaper=[[Techdirt]] |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> ====Justification==== In a January 4th open letter to Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]], Phil Gomes of Edelman posted on his blog,<ref name="gomesblog">{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> "A truly serious conversation needs to happen about how communications professionals and the Wikipedia community can/must work together. Since recent events have thrown this issue into sharp relief, I’d like us to have an open, constructive and fair discussion about the important issues where public relations and Wikipedia intersect.”<ref name=Forbes/> Gomes explained that Wikipedia's prominence as a top search result adds a level of responsibility to be accurate.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He suggested that many articles have inaccuracies or are outdated, and existing channels for addressing these issues--such as leaving a message on the article's "Talk" page--do not receive timely responses.<ref name=techdirtpr/> Gomes further argued that allowing PR representatives to fix minor errors, such as spelling, grammar and facts, leaves too much ambiguity about what are acceptable changes to make.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He made the comparison between PR editors and activists, challenging that activists seem to enjoy "much more latitude".<ref name=techdirtpr/> Gomes argued that in certain situations, like when an article is derelect, direct editing of articles was called for.<ref name=techdirtpr/> CREWE has attracted the support of the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), who made the following statement: <blockquote>"It is an initiative we hope will be taken up by many and used as a catalyst for an open and honest discussion with Wikipedia and its editors regarding the role and value of allowing corporate communications and PR professionals to responsibly and transparently make necessary edits to their employers’ and clients’ Wikipedia entries."<ref name=Forbes/></blockquote> ====Organization==== As of January 25, CREWE was reported to have over 150 participants,<ref name="Odwyer">{{cite news |title=Tortuous Wikipedia Rules Require Expert |author=Jack O'Dwyer |url=http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3911-Tortuous-Wikipedia-Rules-Require-Expert.html |newspaper=[[O'Dwyer's]] |date=January 25, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> including [[J. R. O'Dwyer Company|Jack O’Dwyer]], Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson, Marcia W. DiStaso,<ref>{{cite news |title=Should Public Relations Professionals be Allowed to Edit Wikipedia Articles? |author=Marcia W. DiStaso |url=http://www.instituteforpr.org/2012/02/should-public-relations-professionals-be-allowed-to-edit-wikipedia-articles/ |newspaper=Institute for Public Relations |date=February 13, 2012 |accessdate=February 17, 2012}}</ref> and industry trade association the [[Public Relations Society of America|Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)]].<ref name=Forbes/> According to [[Gerard F. Corbett]], CEO of PRSA, CREWE is based on four principles:<ref name=techdirt/> *Corporate communicators want to do the right thing. *Communicators engaged in ethical practice have a lot to contribute. *Current Wikipedia policy does not fully understand Nos. 1 and 2, owing to the activities of some bad actors and a general misunderstanding of public relations in general. *Accurate Wikipedia entries are in the public interest. CREWE maintains a group on [[Facebook]]<ref name="Facebook">{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ |title=Aanmelden |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> including a page where people can report issues they have with the Wikipedia.<ref name="TechRepublic">{{cite news |title=Four Social Media IT rules to live by |author=Gina Smith |url=http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/tech-manager/four-social-media-it-rules-to-live-by/7275 |newspaper=[[TechRepublic]] |date=February 7, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> It also details Wikipedia's [[conflict of interest]] guidelines, best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, and controversial issues.<ref name=TechRepublic/> One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on [[Fortune 100]] companies.<ref name=Odwyer/> Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/doc/165384016900187/ |title=Aanmelden |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles;<ref name="Lovell">{{cite web|url=http://lovell.com/public-relations/pr-pros-push-wikipedia-editing-rights/ |title=PR Pros Push For Wikipedia Editing Rights|publisher=[[Lovell Communications]] |date=January 19, 2012|author=Erin Lawley |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> note that Wikipedia generally [[WP:PAY|strongly discourages]] paid editing of articles (as opposed to article talk pages) Among the organization's goals are to get Jimmy Wales to change his opinion about paid editors directly editing articles as well as making Wikipedia a more welcoming place for PR workers.<ref name="socialfresh">{{cite web|url=http://socialfresh.com/jimmy-wales-and-public-relations-face-off/ |title=Jimmy Wales and Public Relations Face Off |author=David King |publisher=Socialfresh.com |date=January 16, 2012|accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> Around the same time CREWE was created, a separate Wikipedia group called ''WikiProject Cooperation''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation |title=Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |publisher=En.wiki.x.io |date= |accessdate=2012-02-12}}</ref> was started to provide education, oversight, assistance, and collaboration to paid editors.<ref name=socialfresh/> ====Receptiom==== After the group started, conversation on [[Twitter]] and elsewhere ensued between group members and Jimmy Wales.<ref name=Forbes/><ref name=socialfresh/> In a response on Gomes' blog, Wales maintained PR representatives should cooperate with the community and abide by its policies, but still not edit articles directly.<ref name="techdirtpr">{{cite web|url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/02160317359/should-pr-people-be-able-to-edit-otherwise-ignored-wikipedia-pages-their-clients-to-correct-errors.shtml |title=Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored Wikipedia Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors? |publisher=[[Techdirt]] |date=2012-01-10 |accessdate=2012-02-11}}</ref> Wales wrote: <blockquote>...no one in the PR industry has ever put forward a cogent argument (and seldom bother putting forward an argument at all) why it is important that they take the potentially (especially if I have anything to do with it) reputation damaging step of directly editing entries where they are acting as paid advocates. The simple and obvious answer is to do what works, without risking the reputation of the client: talk to the community, respect their autonomy, and never ever directly edit an article. There are many avenues for you to make simple factual corrections, and these avenues actually do work...What I have found - and the evidence for this is pretty comprehensive - is that people who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html?cid=6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c#comment-6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref></blockquote> David King, a marketing professional that specializes in Wikipedia, implied CREWE members were lobbying for broader editing privileges on Wikipedia that they haven't earned.<ref name="PRSquared">By David King, PR-Squared. "[http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2012/02/wikipedia-for-marketers-the-last-word Wikipedia for Marketers: The Last Word]." February 13, 2012. Retrieved February 18, 2012.</ref> He suggested that PR people will need to be humble and learn Wikipedia's rules.<ref name="socialfresh"/> David also portrays the group as resting blame on Jimmy Wales, when the public relations field will "have to pay the admission fee [to Wikipedia] in sweat, experience and good manners."<ref name="socialfresh"/> See also Chartered Insititute of Public relations (CIPR) References {{reflist}} Further reading Sally Yates (February 3, 2012). "Wikipedia & PR: Still not a match made in heaven". Metia. Retrieved February 11, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) External links CREWE Facebook group

Discussion

• I support changing History to Justification
• I'm not sure why PRSA's quote belongs in the Justification section, since it is a response
• I don't think it's appropriate to have a Criticism section rather than a Response/Reception section with both positive, neutral, and critical responses
• Your quote: David King, a marketing professional that specializes in Wikipedia, implied CREWE members were lobbying for broader editing privileges on Wikipedia that they haven't earned.[19] He suggested that PR people will need to be humble and learn Wikipedia's rules.[16] David also portrays the group as resting blame on Jimmy Wales, when the public relations field will "have to pay the admission fee [to Wikipedia] in sweat, experience and good manners."[16]
  • I'm not sure we should get into your speciality, since I haven't seen a third-party support that.
  • I don't think we can say what you 'implied' only what you said.
  • I haven't seen the specific quote where you say CREWE is blaming wales. Part of the problem with the PR-squared post is that you don't actually mention CREWE by name, so it would be a bit of synthesis, ridiculous as it sounds, to assume you were talking about CREWE when you criticized PR professionals in general.

Nice work, I think this will help us get closer. I haven't commented on everything, but I'm looking closely at the rest. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

When I click edit on the header for "King4057's proposed changes" it only has the wp:lead bit in, I have to edit the whole page to get to the bottom of this comment thread, weird - It might be better to do it as a /subpage then {{transclude}} it like that, I'm not sure if that would still fix the headers though

I think I agree, I'm not sure if "metia" is a reliable source though for further reading, seems a bit advertisementy (though I know that's not one of yours)

I like that you quoted Jimbo, that was good thinking, he's the one who hasn't really had any of his stuff brought up on this before that I've seen, and he's pretty much the only one strongly opposed other than me, lol. Hmm, interesting though, when it comes to Jimmy Wales does his talk page count as his professional site to quote? Seems like it'd be kinda a special situation for quoting Wikipedia, I have no idea. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 23:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

copied from King's draft talk page:

Cool. Feel free to be bold and edit away. A few notes:

I think the description of myself was lifted from the blog post, but you could just anonymize it somehow, since it's obviously self-serving.

I didn't mention CREWE outright, but the statement links to a media story about CREWE. O'Dwyer makes a similar statement. "The criticism being heaped on Wikipedia by PR pros on a Facebook page (CREWE)" indicating that CREWE rests the blame for issues on Wikipedia

If you look at the citation, near the end, I clearly identified it as blaming Jimmy Wales.

All of CREWE's blog posts and op-eds would be first-person sources and not appropriate for "Reception." I think either title is fine, so long as any information in the section comes from third parties.

Thanks Ocaasi. Sorry I keep subverting your efforts to keep the discussion in one place.

I agree with Mistress on removing the Further Reading, but only because it doesn't add anything not already in the article. King4057 (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think I agree with formatting the article to have a Criticism section. Those are rather discouraged in every article. Instead, we should rename Reception to Critical reception and include both positive and negative statements there. That's generally how it's done. Silverseren^C 00:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• FYI a client just forwarded me an article in CorpComms magazine by Clare Harrison "Time for Wiki-editing?", but I can't find it online. Eventhough Clare is a CREWE member, she is a journalist covering the story for the magazine. She wrote a nice full-length feature story that is fairly balanced. King4057 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here it is. You had the title wrong. Silverseren^C 00:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Wait, that's old, nevermind. :P Silverseren^C 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• I don't think it's been released yet. Silverseren^C 01:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here you go http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/features/2212-time-for-wiki-editing King4057 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

COI template

I believe the template recently added is not designed to 'warn readers' but to alert editors so they can check the article. In that spirit, is there anything in the actual article which is not neutral or otherwise breaching policy? Please discuss. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 08:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. Persistence will win in the end, and volunteers cannot compete with professionals. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not helpful, Johnuniq, and not funny. And not answering the question either. It's standard, Ocaasi, to wait 24 hours after a tag is placed for an explanation for the tag to be put on the talk page. If one isn't put by then, then it can be removed, since all tags are supposed to have an accompanying explanation on how to fix the issues (unless they are the more self-explanatory tags, like add more references or fix the lede). Silverseren^C 15:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Over 24 hours and there has been no explanation as to what the problem is. I'll remove the template. SmartSE (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"Over 24 hours" is called "a day" in normal parlance outside Wikipedia, e.g. people sometimes have other stuff to do...

I said in my comment when I made the edit what the reason was already, though, why is that some people treat edit summaries as though they just don't exist, I don't get it, does it just "not exist in policy" unless it's on a talk page? My comment was:

"Article started by member of the group, Ocaasi, then largely edited by other members Silver seren and Fred Bauder"

Is that disputed? Is WP:COI policy being disputed too, since it says subjects of articles should not edit the article, and the 3 main editors in the article's history are all very prominent and active supporters in the facebook group which is the subject of the article?

I don't get this, according to WP:COI this should not have happened at all, and the people that did it should know better. It's a terrible precedent to set and a really bad example to show the PR people when people supposedly advising them don't follow the rules yourselves! --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 19:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because we edited it isn't a problem. The only issue would be if there was a problem with the article related to us editing it. Is there something wrong with the article? Silverseren^C 20:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I can't see any way that the contributors to this article stand to gain from it. Ergo there is no COI. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There are LOTS of things wrong with the article. For starters, it doesn't demonstrate the notability of the group... -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Copying from what I said in the AfD. It has been featured in a number of news reports and specific industry publications, including Forbes, PR Week, Techdirt, Campaign Asia-Pacific and Techdirt 2 as the news articles. The industry specific sources include O'Dwyer's and New Zealand Management. There are also a number of other sources that fall in a range in between a news source and an industry specific source, including a number of official discussions by companies. Thus, notability is quite evident. Silverseren^C 21:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it's been written up in a few places by people who are members of the Facebook group or people who are connected to members of the Facebook group. However, as per the GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. ... 'Presumed' means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." Thus, the question remains: Why does this matter? Of what importance is it? To truly satisfy the GNG, this article's advocates must have a compelling answer to that question, and thus far, I have seen none. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Importance is not a criteria of notability at all. Notability is just as it says, having been noted. We require that notice to be from reliable sources, but other than that, notability has no relation to importance or even to real world impact. Silverseren^C 16:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You should really re-read Wikipedia:Notability when you get the chance, because it doesn't agree with you at all. The fourth sentence of it: "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." So yes, "importance" very much is a consideration in determining the notability of an article's subject. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I would also direct your attention to the section under the header Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity, which states, "Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability: Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." From my reading of the situation, nearly all of the sources listed in the article fail this test. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

DiStaso survey

Hi! I have two concerns with this survey. The first is the issue of the accuracies of the findings - the survey contains contradictory claims, in that it presents a set of data, which effectively states that "60% of respondents who are aware of Wikipedia articles about themselves or their current clients found that at least one article contained errors", and a conclusion that doesn't follow from that data, "60% of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors". The author incorrectly conflates the percentage of respondents with the percentage of articles. Accordingly, I think this should be treated as questionable.

The other issue, though, is whether or not this is appropriate for an article about CREWE, in that the survey isnt about CREWE, but about Wikipedia and PR professionals. Thus it's inclusion reads more like supporting CREWE's agenda, rather than discussing the subject of the article. - Bilby (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I should add that there is no "brightline rule" as the source and the article states. Including that claim here seems to be misleading. - Bilby (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with anything you said, this is really the sort of situation that brings "verifiability, not truth" into question. We know the truth to be that these news sources are wrong, but the incorrect info being presented is verifiable from both the survey itself and the news sources that covered it. At least with how policy is currently written, we would have to ignore what we know to be true and report what is verifiable. Silverseren^C 00:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, that's not what we need to do. :) First, because this survey is not related to CREWE, we don't need to include it. And second, "verifiability, not truth" tells us that we can't include information that isn't verifiable just because it is true. However, it doesn't tell us that we need to include information that is false just because it is verifiable. In this case we know this information to be false. On those grounds, we don't need to include it in the article, and wouldn't need to include it even if it was directly related to the subject. - Bilby (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bilby and then some - the article's conclusions are completely bogus - which can be easily seen just by reading the paper and adding up the numbers. Also it was written with "the members of Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) ... fine tuning the questionnaire, spreading the word to encourage participation and working to improve the problems with public relations/communications Wikipedia editing."(p. 21) In other words, the sample selection was seriously biased, as is the author. For another example of biasing the sample and the author's bald-faced bias see [1] where she states her opinions and then solicits participation in the survey. Example of opinion stated in the solicitation:

Given our findings [in a previous article] and the wide use of Wikipedia by the public, having articles with incorrect or outdated information is not in anyone’s interest, but edits made by public relations professionals are unlikely to stick. Gerry Corbett, chair and CEO of the Public Relations Society of America, along with many others have suggested that Wikipedia policies should be based on accuracy and transparency in Wikipedia articles; no matter who does the editing, as long as the information is accurate, unbiased and properly referenced.

These are essentially the same conclusions she comes up with in the resulting survey - but frankly, her numbers just don't add up. Smallbones (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the content for now, on the grounds that I think it can be agreed that the findings are unreliable. Used in the article as it was, the text appears to a reader (whether rightly or wrongly) to support CREWE's reasons for establishment. Given that two of the three findings listed have been shown to be incorrect, that creates an NPOV problem by using incorrect claims to support the subject's position. - Bilby (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss it. In addition to the survey itself, there was widespread reporting on it. I think some of those reports sensationalized the findings, but I don't think the findings themselves are in question. It was a survey and as such it was about the opinions of those surveyed. It was not a factual investigation. As long as we present it as such, which I believe the text did, we should report on it. We must also be careful not to be biased against it merely because we don't like the findings or are skeptical of PR editor's motives. As a CREWE member, I haven't been thrilled with the survey, which struck me as somewhat political, but it's findings still have some merit. In any event, it's relevant to what CREWE is doing, and that's what this article is about. Here's the draft, let's discuss it:

CREWE was part of a survey looking at how Wikipedia is viewed by Public Relations professionals. The survey results included,"60% of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors", edits requested on talk pages took several days for a response and almost one quarter were not responded to, and PR professionals were not informed about a "brightline rule" advocated by Jimmy Wales prohibiting direct editing of articles by PR professionals. The report concluded that such a rule was neither working nor clearly stated.

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem isn't that I'm skeptical of the motives or don't like the results - the problem is that the paper is unreliable for most of the claims it is being used to support, and that those claims aren't needed in this article anyway. The proposed text makes the claims:

• The survey results included, "60% of the Wikipedia articles for respondents who were familiar with their company or recent client’s article contained factual errors"
• Edits requested on talk pages took several days for a response and almost one quarter were not responded to.
• PR professionals were not informed about a "brightline rule" advocated by Jimmy Wales prohibiting direct editing of articles by PR professionals. The report concluded that such a rule was neither working nor clearly stated.

Starting with the third of these, there is no brightline rule on Wikipedia. It doesn't exist. (There is an essay, and claims that it should exist, but current policy and guidelines don't prohibit PR professionals from directly editing articles). But including those words ascribed to DiStaso makes it appear that it does. This may lend support to CREWE's stance, but is seriously misleading to readers, who will not typically be aware that that the claim is false. (As an aside, this is a fundamental flaw of the two papers as a whole, as they are based on the premise that the brightline rule exists in order to justify exploring how effectively it is applied and understood).

In regard to this first, there are contradictory statements in the paper. The figures DeStaso provides do not support that conclusion, yet she draws it anyway. The conclusion simply cannot be drawn from the data. Again, including that claim does seem to lend support to CREWE's position, but the claim is not reliable, as the conclusion is unrelated to the data collected.

On the plus side, the second point is valid, given the limits of the survey methodology in regard to selection bias.

My concern is that including claims which we know to be false (as in the brightline rule) or which are unreliable (the 60% figure) is misleading, and potentially introduces a pro-CREWE bias to the article by using unreliable data to support CREWE's position. - Bilby (talk) 02:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Certainly, given major problems in the paper's methodology, we can't say that it is reliable. I'd like to read the 2nd paper (the final reference above) which is new and entirely new to me. It might not have any statistics in it - which is likely to improve her credibility. Smallbones (talk) 02:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the second article continues with the misunderstanding of the COI guidelines, so it suffers from the same core problem. It might be worth writing a paper on the current state of the COI guidelines on Wikipedia, although I guess we would be best off waiting for the RfC to finish before tackling that, on the grounds that it might engender change. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

from the second paper

The February to March 2012 survey conducted with 1284 responses from public relations/communications professionals found that 60 percent of the Wikipedia articles for companies and clients of respondents who were familiar with them had factual errors (see DiStaso, 2012). This is a very large percentage when considering that essentially six out of ten corporate articles have factual errors. (p.4)

At least you can say that she believes her own mistakes. Smallbones (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to address the issue of the paper's accuracy in some detail - the numbers really don't add up in my view.

First, the question of article accuracy was not among the research questions DiStaso set out to investigate. The closest research question was "RQ2: What is the Wikipedia editing experience of public relations/communications professionals?" This is important - if you are going to investigate accuracy, you need to have a plan on how best to do this. It would probably involve more than a single question. Some of my difficulties understanding the results may simply be caused a poorly worded question.

{"wikitable" style="font-size:98%; text-align:center;" align="left" |+ Data summarized from DiStaso paper
"Are there currently factual errors in your company or client’s Wikipedia articles?"
x=excluded from calculations |- bgcolor="background:#eee;" ! Group/answer !! N !!% !! 2nd % || 3rd % |- | Yes || align="left"| 406 || align="right"|32% || 60% || 41% |- |Don't know || align="left"| 310 || align="right"|25% || x || 31% |- |No || align="left"| 273 || align="right"|22% || 40% ||28% |- | No article || align="left"| 271 || align="right"|22% || x || x |- |denominator|| align="left"| - || align="right"|1260 || 679 || 989 |} The exact wording of the single question is not given, but appears to be "Are there currently factual errors in your company or client’s Wikipedia articles?" (perhaps without the final "s"). The order of the possible responses, "Yes," "Don't know," "No," and "No article," is the order that DiStaso used to summarize the data, but it seems unlikely that this order was used in the survey.

The meaning of the "Don't know" response is crucial. DiStaso interpreted it to mean that the respondent was "unfamiliar with the article" and therefore excluded this answer from her calculations (Column "2nd %"). It is highly unlikely that a PR professional, who knows that his company or client has an article on Wikipedia, and who has taken the time to fill out this survey would be unfamiliar with the article. Therefore I include this answer in my calculations ("3rd %). Some PR folks apparently know for sure that there is an error in the relevant article, some know that there isn't and some just can't decide. Only 41% of the total can identify an error, not 60%. Of course, "don't know" might mean that they don't know if their company or client has a Wikipedia article. This also seems highly unlikely, if only because the survey was taken online. By opening another tab in their browsers and googling the company, they could find out in 10 seconds or less if there was a Wikipedia article. "Wikipedia articles" (with the "s") might also cause confusion. Perhaps a respondent works for an agency with 10 clients which have Wikipedia articles, and just couldn't decide which one to choose. In that case however, the entire interpretation of the results must change. A yes answer might mean that 1 in 10 articles had an error, rather than the single article the respondent examined had an error. All in all, the results of this survey question are impossible to interpret, but the least likely interpretation is that 60% of Wikipedia articles have errors. Probably the most likely interpretation is "41% of PR professionals whose company or client has an article (or articles) on Wikipedia believe that they found an error in it (or them)."

Please tell me if you can make better sense of this question. Smallbones (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

{Who} and {Which}

I'm a little confused by these tags. The description in the article reflects the sources. CREWE was started by public relations professionals, some of whom are named in the article. Others are not. Would we be expected to list almost 300 people? The same applies to which Wikipedia editors are in the group. Aside from doing original research and linking members ourselves, we did what the source did and simply summarized that "some Wikipedia editors" are in the group, including Jimmy Wales. In all I don't think those tags are appropriate. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Great. *sighs* I removed the tags under that exact reasoning yesterday, but it looks like Hit bull, win steak reverted me with an edit summary that doesn't address the uselessness of the tags. I've removed them yet again. Silverseren^C 06:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that a full list of members (or at least as complete a one as possible) further down in the article would be entirely appropriate, assuming that they can be verified with reliable sources. If the group's membership can't be verified with RS, then the section in question should be re-worded so as to better conform to site policies and guidelines (maybe something along these lines: "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE) is a Facebook group[1] created by Phil Gomes,[5] senior vice-president[6] at Edelman Digital, with the stated goal of improving the relationship between members of the public relations industry and Wikipedia. The group lobbies for greater involvement by PR professionals on the site, with the view that such involvement would aid Wikipedia in maintaining accurate articles about corporations. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales[3] is among those who have joined the group to discuss these issues.[4] Gomes started CREWE in January, 2012 after John Cass of NewLogic Inc.[7] recommended the idea to him.[8][9][10]) What do you think? That avoids the issue of not being able to name or credit the participants in question, and uses a more neutral tone. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a full list of members would be a mix of original research and a violation of WP:NOT (index, directory, etc.). If sources don't single out select Wikipedians then neither should we. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Wales as a member

In light of Wales's quotes in today's edition of the Wikipedia Signpost, I think the article's mention of him as having joined CREWE should be either removed or edited to reflect his most recent stated position, which is as follows: "I am not a member of CREWE." Until this point has been resolved, I have added a "disputed" tag to the header on the page, to reflect the inconsistency. Thoughts? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the Wales reference. Some might see it as historically interesting that he originally joined the group and then apparently left it, which I'm happy to discuss, but for now it's out. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ragans

FYI - a fresh source [2] User:King4057 00:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)