• Phil, on what basis do you assume that Wikipedians would decry straightforward, good faith edits as "whitewashing?" It is possible that would happen under certain conditions, but a brief review of company articles would review hundreds of instances where it has not happened. I don't know that assuming the worst of Wikipedians is the best starting point for finding a path forward. -Pete (talk) 00:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pete. I'm saying here that the story that gets out about a company is "Company edits Wikipedia entry" rather than "It simply changed the founding date." Just pointing out that it happens and it's a large part of the anxiety that a lot of communicators have about Wikipedia. It certainly isn't "pointing out the worst." --Philgomes (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This entire series is advertising for advertising: an effort to improve the public image of paid editing and shift the Overton window in its favour. It's getting really blatant. Just how long do you intend to use the Signpost as advertising for advertising in this manner? - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with David Gerard. Paid professionals have time and motivation to glorify their work, but doing so on Signpost is most unwelcome. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David, Johnuniq - Not sure what's wrong with giving PR people and/or "paid editors" the opportunity to voice their views and opinions, particularly with regard to a controversial topic upon which reasonable people can disagree. --Philgomes (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• These complaints are noted, but could I remind you that The Signpost recently published a story that was hardly flattering to the paid-editing lobby. It has received almost 2000 hits. Tony (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm actually OK with this article series. It's an issue and I don't think it fair to characterise coverage as in itself promotional. Moving on: "Both critics and many people in my field may find this view naive, but I think it will be increasingly essential in terms of preserving a company's perceived moral authority to participate in online communities." I'm not quite sure what that means. But I can't think of a single profit-making company that I would regard as having "moral authority". There's probably companies I would point to as having morals but I would never EVER start looking towards profit-driven bodies of any kind to suggest principles that would alter or influence my behaviour. I'm even somewhat repelled by the thought. So the idea that there's a "perception of moral authority" to even be "preserved" I find completely alienating. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bodnotbod - We'll probably never agree on the perceived evils of the profit motive. That said, by "moral authority to participate in online communities" I'm saying that a company has a tacit license to be a part of the communities that matter most to its business so long as that license is not abused by bad behavior (e.g., sockpuppetry, etc.). Those companies also need to figure out ways that it can help those communities do what they do better and providing ideas/access while remaining above-board about their commercial interests for being there. It's a serious issue: A company's right to be part of a community. --Philgomes (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*KWAAAAARK* Sorry, "a company's right"? to be "part of a community"? That's a right held by individuals, not by a corporate entity. Corporations are not, in fact, humans - have you just stated that your intention is to make such a rule? - David Gerard (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David - Companies have representatives ("humans" as you've been kind enough to note) and, despite the use of disclaimers like "These are my opinions and not those of my employer", very very few will make the distinction you make above in a community environment where the employer clearly has a stake. In any event, it's clear that personal and professional lines are blurring. --Philgomes (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have carefully phrased that last clause in the passive voice. If phrased in the active voice, it would make your statement "We have blurred the lines, therefore you should give us more license" - David Gerard (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PR has done no such thing. Modern life in the online world has. --Philgomes (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't like this "tacit license" either. For example, say there is a community set up for customers of a company; it is understandable that the company will want to join the discussion. And perhaps the community would want that. But then again the community may decide that's NOT what they want, and so the company should accept the community decision and "tacit licences" be damned. I suppose I can see how a company can have a "moral authority", I think perhaps I was looking at it from too personal an angle. To me it read something like "if you want to learn about morals, try looking at the exemplary behaviour of X company!" Whereas I would go "good Lord! Please go and read the works of the great philosophers instead." --bodnotbod (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BodnotBod - In the scenario above, if a company is truly unwelcome, that company most certainly should respect that. I do find that this is actually very rare, though. In the case of Wikipedia, I don't get the sense that a corporate representative is generally "unwelcome" so long as they behave well. CREWE is working to educate PR folks about proper behavior. --Philgomes (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a traditional reporter were writing a story about a company, they would seek out what the subject of the article has to say about itself. That doesn't mean the company has control over the story. It may not come out the way they want it to, but professional journalists (and Wikipedia's citizen journalists) will lend the article subject an honest ear and the reader benefits. It's not about the company's rights to participate. It is and always will be about improving the pedia. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This series is helpful because it clarifies the thinking of people who are involved in the debate. I found it particularly illuminating that the Public Relations Society of America finds no incompatibility between advocacy and independence. This is not mere "spin", it is a complete reversal of meaning befitting the high art of Orwellian Newspeak. There is no need to address concerns about advocacy and independence if one can simply deny the meaning of the concepts. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ningauble - What's missing here is the specific context for the word "independence." From the PRSA site, it defines it as "We provide objective counsel to those we represent. We are accountable for our actions." What's meant here is that a good communicator doesn't "go native" and drink his company's or client's proverbial Kool-Aid. Trust me: The worst people in our business are the ones who simply execute on communications without asking important (and sometimes internally unpopular) questions like "What is in the best interests of the firm?", "What is in the best interests of the audience?" and most important of all "Are the two compatible?" In that light, it's not incompatible with "advocacy" at all. In fact, it makes that advocate more credible both in terms of his/her authority within an organization and his/her acceptability by an audience. Now, as I'm not a member of the PRSA, you'll have to take it up with them in terms of debates about shades of meaning and word-choice, but "independence" appears to cover what that particular code tries to convey. --Philgomes (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that my question wasn't fully informed by a closer reading of the actual text of the PRSA ethics code. Indeed, as Phil suggests, "independence" in that context means "objectivity" rather than "non-partisanship". Perhaps that resolves the internal tension in the ethics code, but it does leave open the question of whether one can be a "loyal advocate", even an objective one, and still be neutral in the way that Wikipedia intends it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything to regret. It was a good question, and the way he chose to respond is illuminating. On behalf of independent contractors everywhere let me say that exercising one's own judgment and upholding professional codes of conduct is a good thing. I too have had occasion to tell a client to reconsider what they were asking me to provide. The question, taken in the context of ongoing debate, implied a different sense of independence that contrasts with the notion of acting for and on behalf of someone. He might have availed himself of the opportunity to address the difference and propound the virtues of independent agency, but chose instead to simply deny the sense of the question.

More than one of the articles in this series is suggestive of a situation where parties to the debate are talking past each other, not just disagreeing over positions on the issues but lacking a shared understanding of what the issues are. It does indeed leave the question open. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused that "what is in the best interests of the firm?" can be an "internally unpopular" question. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read a few more Dilbert strips. --Philgomes (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "The primary motivation was that talk page entries for articles on multi-billion dollar firms (and their related Wikiprojects) in high-interest industries were going ignored for several weeks, all while inaccurate information about the company persisted and remained highly available to search." -- This is an important problem that has been ignored for a long time. Back in 2006, Kami Huyse, did exactly what Jimmy Wales insists was the only way PR people should contribute to Wikipedia. It took five years for someone to respond to her suggestion. The manner Wales insists is the only way PR people should contribute to Wikipedia doesn't work, & hasn't worked for years. IMHO, if you don't provide a workable solution that lets people like Huyse contribute to the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" in good faith, they won't & will allow only those willing to contribute in bad faith. -- llywrch (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing suggested on the CREWE group was a noticeboard for the purpose, which would save such messages languishing on the unread talk pages of barely-read articles. I think that could potentially work really well. Is anyone interested in (a) setting up such a noticeboard (b) actually monitoring it? - David Gerard (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David, I think you're close to what I've advocated as the basic solution here... There needs to be some sort of a message board closely linked to, but not part of, Wikipedia for such complaints, suggestions, and teeing up content... A board on WP is apt to be lost in the bureaucratic labyrinth and would fall under WP site rules and cultural norms — in which the bullying and blocking of outsiders and newcomers is pervasive. Something not too dissimilar to Wikipediocracy (without the jihadist agenda of a few of the principals there) would get more attention and would be a place where those feeling wronged could vent a little without being ignored, dissed, or annihilated. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wish is for CREWE to start and maintain the board, I add. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I speak of a board on Wikipedia, not elsewhere. You could put one somewhere else, but don't be surprised if approximately no-one on WP regards it as anything other than more advertising for advertising. In particular, there's enough WR/Wikipediocracy trolls on CREWE already to suggest that group is rather less useful than it aspires to be - David Gerard (talk) 18:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested creating an on-Wikipedia suggestion box for the CREWE group. Just an idea stub: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/CREWE suggestion box . Discussions on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cooperation#CREWE_suggestion_box. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note related discussion concerning a company noticeboard or help desk at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Paid Advocacy FAQ. --JN466 14:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Another noticeboard? Why not try a simpler solution: A PR makes a suggestion on the talk page, waits a reasonable amount of time -- say a week -- & if no one bothers to respond said person goes ahead & makes the change. No risk of feature creep, or of unwanted red tape, or requiring more people -- who would be be employed writing articles -- to monitor Yet Another Discussion Page. And if the change is utter crap, Wikipedia has this tres kewl feature known as the "Page History" which allows knowledgeable users to revert the page to an older & better version. -- llywrch (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • While people have a clear allergy to the notion of someone from a company making a (however small) edit, llywrch brings up a good point. I fear that a new noticeboard just makes another "contribution ghetto" that's sends the signal "These are less-important and can be ignored." The logic seems to be "Why have one place to be ignored when you can have two at three times the effort?" What am I missing? --Philgomes (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You got me. Maybe if a corporate employee makes an edit on behalf of her/his employer -- good, bad, or indifferent -- it gives Wikipedia cooties. At least that's the message I'm hearing in this proposal for Yet Another Discussion Page. -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The idea is that the CREWE people would make it their business to make sure the noticeboard is staffed. And I am sure we would have other Wikipedians looking in as well. ;) If you look at how the WP:BLPN noticeboard works, you'll see it can make a real difference to have one place in Wikipedia where people with a good knowledge of the relevant content policy congregate to discuss articles that have gone wrong. JN466 20:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm quite happy that this series is being run and find them very enlightening. Here's what I think about while reading the interviews.
  • What question was asked?
  • Was the question answered?
  • What idea was put forward in the response to the question?

All of these interviews provide the reader with information and that makes them useful. 64.40.54.67 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion for a future interview: a hardball interview with Jimmy Wales on the question. Carrite (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the main thing that PR people need to understand is that Wikipedia has been under sustained constant assault from advertisers and PR people for the last few years. I don't mean once a day, I mean once a minute. Sure there are some large companies that have crappy Wikipedia articles, but there are also thousands of articles for tiny companies that are basically just spam, and we spend countless hours every day dealing with them. Your efforts to introduce some ethics into how PR people interact with Wikipedia are quite admirable (if perhaps naive), but if I were you I wouldn't expect Wikipedians to welcome you with open arms. To go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law, let's pretend it's WWII. Wikipedia is France and the PR industry is Germany. Germany has launched an all-out invasion and the troops are marching towards Paris. The tanks are rolling and there are body parts of Wikipedians flying everywhere. In the midst of this invasion, a well-meaning German decides to propose a new law for France. He suggests that the French be more careful about who they are shooting at and always make sure that they ask any approaching Germans what their intentions are before they shoot at them. Strangely, the well-meaning German is ignored. Obviously, this is a poor analogy, but that's how the typical Wikipedia editor views the situation. In a war, there are always innocent causalities, but until the PR industry as a whole declares a cease-fire, Wikipedia editors are going to hold on to their guns. Kaldari (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting past the spectacular tastelessness of comparing people in my line of work to Nazis... I don't expect Wikipedians to welcome PR "with open arms." I do challenge them, however, to at least listen to the very legitimate concerns that companies have--concerns that, if addressed, actually help make a better encyclopedia. To extend your WWII metaphor, Wikipedia's posture toward corporate representatives (e.g., dismiss them as unworthy of serious consideration) and the remedies used (e.g., the "umbrage fatigue"-inducing public-shaming approach) are akin to the Maginot Line: great for addressing yesterday's issues, but ultimately inadequate for achieving the overarching, strategic goal. (In this case, an accurate and highly available resource.) --Philgomes (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • In game-theoretic terms, it's um complicated. There's likely some sort of qualitative difference between CREWE sorts and the run of the mill spammer. The question is (a) whether the difference makes a difference in practice (b) whether concessions to the nice ones just encourage the not-so-nice ones. The latter is the big fear: frankly, this stuff is, in practical terms, difficult to distinguish from spam, and the payoff in doing so is entirely unclear. Hideous bullshit like the faked-up pseudoacademic study really do not help in distinguishing the two at all - David Gerard (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that the Penn State study was terribly mis-marketed, but it's not completely without value to PR or Wikipedia. (I won't rehash my opinions from the article.) Jimmy Wales and others have long said "Go to the Talk page" whenever there's an error or grievance and that it'll take just a few days to get a response. This is simply not true and a survey of communicators strongly suggests same. As to PR and spam: Mediocre PR practitioners practice spam but spammers are most definitely not engaging in PR. Folks in CREWE know the difference. --Philgomes (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "...activists or class-action lawyers, both of which are groups that possess the resources, expertise and bias described here, and in ample amounts.". This is an absurd comparison. There are orders of magnitude of difference in terms of resources. I think the facts on these matters are uncontroversial, and completely misrepresented here. Then we have "PR officials aren't specifically on the hook for improving a company's profitability... shades of gray...". I would have thought it's pretty clear. The overriding motivation of these private enterprises is to make profit. They are paying these PR people to help them to do that in one way or another. For that, and for no other reason. The Venn diagram of "most accurate presentation" and "most profitable presentation" clearly has more than one circle in it. There are plenty of egregious cases to verify that too. There's no way to wriggle out of this. If this is the way the world is presented even in an article trying to convince us that these guys are on the side of public interest and accuracy, well, it worries me. Worsehorse (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worsehorse - With respect, I have a pretty good idea of what public relations people are tasked with doing on behalf of a company. And, believe it or not, not everything we do (or even most of what we do) is aimed at stoking the magical ringing of cash registers or click-click-click of discharged e-commerce shopping carts. A PR person's interest in Wikipedia is more along the lines of reputation management, not marketing. Your argument assumes that corporations 1) deserve to have a hand tied behind their back, while 2) organizations who disagree with or even hate a company have a greater right to their point of view. As to orders of magnitude: When it comes down to the fact that computing devices are increasingly inexpensive and connectivity is asymptotically approaching "free", the playing field is quite level, or at least from that perspective. --Philgomes (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• David Gerard says, "One thing suggested on the CREWE group was a noticeboard for the purpose, which would save such messages languishing on the unread talk pages of barely read articles. I think that could potentially work really well. Is anyone interested in (a) setting up such a noticeboard (b) actually monitoring it?" I'm interested in helping to get this off the ground; it should be on-wiki, not at CREWE, and dominated by volunteers. I lack key skills, but WPian participants should be able to specialise, as they do in forums such as FAC. One thing I'm interested in helping to construct is a set of guidelines for both PR/company writers and WPians who are responding to requests for edits or reviews. We can hardly sit around complaining about confliction if we make it hard for visiting editors to be open and honest. Tony (talk) 10:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and David might want to come and look at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Paid_Advocacy_FAQ, where the same idea is currently being discussed. --JN466 14:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Phil, you talk of "communications professionals". What you mean, for the most part, is people who are paid to make companies look good. No company pays people to make it look bad, after all. Can you see how that might introduce a tension with WP:NPOV? Can you also see why volunteers might be less than enthusiastic about the need to constantly police articles looking for whitewashing by people who are being paid to make companies look good? Do you see why volunteers might think it evil to edit for pay a website that was built by volunteer contributions, whose reputation and funding is based on those volunteer contributions? From what I have read, you do not really seem to have internalised the basis for objections to paid editing. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, making your client look good is the fundamental game, and that is what WP is encouraging by not engaging with these professionals. An attitude needs to be fostered among companies (and BLP subjects) that your PR person makes you look good at large, but if you want 'em to work on your WP article, you need to accept that they've got to run the gauntlet with a bunch of rules. It's never going to get through to everyone, but engineering user cultures is the way wikis have survived and prospered. So you engage first by answering queries promptly, and by setting up a system of monitoring articles that are likely to be skewed. We manage copyright, we manage POV in much of the project, we even manage several varieties of English. Let's make a start. Tony (talk) 14:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use of the term "professionals" is an appeal to authority. I am a professional too. The point is that "these professionals" are paid advocates for their employers, this is orthogonal to the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not here to advocate, and we are not under any obligation at all to help those who are. "These professionals" are fundamentally uninterested in Wikipedia's mission, don't give a rat's ass about the Wikipedia community, do not care about our community ethos or the fact that we are a charity. All they care about is getting their employer the best possible presence on a high profile website. It's a parasitic mission, and yet they demand that we must accommodate them. They are this: wrong. Now, if they want to adopt a bit of humility and ask for help then fine, but they are in no position to make demands. I have personally discussed this at a high level with the marketing people for several Fortune 500 companies, it took lengthy and patient explanations to get them to understand that what they wanted to do was basically abusing a common good for corporate gain. It is that simple. Once the funding and community background was explained, then they understood why copying and pasting advertorial was never going to fly. They are supplicants here, they have lower status than people who contribute for the love of sharing knowledge, and that is a feature not a bug. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is that different from BLP subjects? They "don't give a rat's ass about the Wikipedia community, do not care about our community ethos or the fact that we are a charity. All they care about" [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t809859-9/#post10057604 is not getting unduly maligned] "on a high profile website". --JN466 20:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's got to be a Godwin's law violation for a Wikipediocracy advocate citing Stormfront to support advertising on Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • David, you are aware that your rhetoric is getting a bit shrill, aren't you? It's not about supporting advertising. The fact is that nobody here gave a toss that Vodacom was being maligned by a Stormfront fan, who was even giving his mates some free and fairly cogent advice on How To Do It™. That content stood for a full two months, was viewed by thousands of people, and the talk page of that article was last edited in 2008. Do you think that's good enough? If you call a Wikipedia that does not end up with articles corrupted by white supremacists a Wikipedia that supports "advertising", then I'm in favour of advertising! JN466 07:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • JzG - You're generating quite a bit more heat than light here. It appears you're reacting to the popular caricature of what we're trying to do, rather than what we're actually doing or recommending. No one is "making demands." And the PR people inside of CREWE have a greater sophistication with the topic than "copying and pasting advertorial." Such people understand that "fair" and "accurate" are reasonable goals for an encyclopedic-level entry. Now, there are some people within Wikipedia that will maintain that an inaccurate or activist entry is in a better state than one where a PR person (operating above-board and with complete transparency) has participated. I respectfully disagree. Through education and dialogue, CREWE is looking for ways that companies can do right by Wikipedia and ensure that the near-top search result for that company is accurate. Not "whitewashed", not "scrubbed"... Believe it or not, companies would be thrilled with "accurate". If the end result is an accurate and fair entry, I don't see reasonable parties on either side disagreeing. --Philgomes (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Phil - JzG is not "generating more heat than light", he's telling you things that don't fit your agenda. That's rather diferent. His response is to your observed behaviour and the observed results of your behaviour, rather than your words. I appreciate that's frustrating to your efforts to shift perceptions your way, but your accusation is odious - David Gerard (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it's your responses here that have been odious. You've made an offensive remark in every single comment on this page. Silverseren^C 07:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Does this mean CREWE will put an end to their lobbying efforts? Now that you are endorsing the Bright Line. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't endorse the Bright Line rule (not that it needs my endorsement) because it doesn't admit of the real complexities of the problem we're discussing. It amounts to little more than a means to dismiss serious discussion. That said, there's a lot more work to do in terms of industry education and the trial-and-error of new ideas (like the noticeboard) that are perhaps better than options made available to communicators. --Philgomes (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • When this industry education takes place and someone wants to know if they can edit their article, what will you tell them? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Likely the response would be to follow Wikipedia's rules regarding editing with a COI, which includes being allowed to make Non-controversial edits. There is currently no policy or guideline that deals with paid editing. The bright line rule is just an essay that Jimbo wrote, nothing more. Silverseren^C 03:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Eclipsed wrote the essay, but it was recently removed. Phil seems to depict CREWE as being mis-characterized, but their portrayal as an aggressive lobbying organization is rooted in trying to get permission for broader direct editing privileges. What I really mean is if they have resolved to learn how to follow current policies and guidelines instead of lobby for change. With exception to the technicality that the bright line forbids punctuation and spelling edits, current policies, guidelines and essays all encourage COIs use Talk pages heavily. It's not that different. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That difference is kind of a big one though, in terms of work load. I don't think we have the resources to actually do request edits for minor changes like that. Silverseren^C 07:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Setting up an efficient noticeboard response system would be a response not just to the immediate issue of involved edits; I'm alarmed that people are now being sued in a number of jurisdictions for what they write on Twitter (two in Australia in the past few weeks have made the news). A rapid-response team is going to be an essential part of protecting the movement from subjects—whether people or organisations—who feel aggrieved at text in WP articles about them. Tony (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing the same stories about how "I'm a PR professional, and I posted on my client's talk page, and nobody responded; so I should be able to edit at will." Has nobody told the CREWE and other pros about the simple little {{help}} template; or the Help Desk? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed results with the template approach. It's nevertheless an escalation point in the first version of the CREWE flowchart. --Philgomes (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably also note that WP:OTRS is available for anybody with urgent concerns related to an article. 64.40.57.7 (talk) 21:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I used the OTRS system recently and they just told me to use the Talk page. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not a customer service organization serving PR customers. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same happened to me. Seems to me that OTRS should only be used for super-egregious problems. Now wondering what its place ought to be on the CREWE flowchart.) --Philgomes (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]