Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-05-07/Paid editing
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
- Does Wikipedia Pay? is an ongoing Signpost series seeking to illuminate paid editing, paid advocacy, for-profit Wikipedia consultants, editing public relations professionals, conflict of interest guidelines in practice, and the Wikipedians who work on these issues by speaking openly with the people involved.
- Paid editing overlaps in places with public relations, the industry of individuals who are employed by companies and clients to manage an image and communicate a message. On Wikipedia, public relations does not enjoy a positive reputation. Considered 'spin' and viewed skeptically by many due to a history of adding positive and removing negative information, it would be fair to characterize public relations as far from having gained the respect of the community.
- This standard narrative has recently become more complex, as the PR industry has begun to push for an accepted place in the Wikipedia ecosystem, arguing against a history of what they see as unfair excommunication by Wikipedia editors—which in their view has left articles on corporations and brands rife with inaccuracies and devoid of constructive improvements that expert corporate communicators could provide.
- That charge has been led by Phil Gomes, a marketing executive with Edelman Digital, whose January 4 open letter on his blog catalyzed the public relations community around a set of grievances and a growing consensus for some corrective action. The momentum generated by Gomes' letter morphed into Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE), a collective of industry professionals and some Wikipedia editors. CREWE's membership is attempting to simultaneously chart a path forward while coming to terms with a complex history in the relationship between PR and the encyclopedia.
- The Signpost spoke with Phil Gomes to better understand how he views Wikipedia and what he thinks needs to change.
How paid editors squeeze you dry
31 January 2024
"Wikipedia and the assault on history"
4 December 2023
The "largest con in corporate history"?
20 February 2023
Truth or consequences? A tough month for truth
31 August 2022
The oligarchs' socks
27 March 2022
Fuzzy-headed government editing
30 January 2022
Denial: climate change, mass killings and pornography
29 November 2021
Paid promotional paragraphs in German parliamentary pages
26 September 2021
Enough time left to vote! IP ban
29 August 2021
Paid editing by a former head of state's business enterprise
25 April 2021
A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video
28 February 2021
Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds
28 December 2020
How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia
29 November 2020
Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking
1 November 2020
Paid editing with political connections
27 September 2020
WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later
27 September 2020
Wikipedia for promotional purposes?
30 August 2020
Dog days gone bad
2 August 2020
Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy
2 August 2020
Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money
2 August 2020
Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news
28 June 2020
Automatic detection of covert paid editing; Wiki Workshop 2020
31 May 2020
2019 Picture of the Year, 200 French paid editing accounts blocked, 10 years of Guild Copyediting
31 May 2020
English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages
30 April 2019
Women's history month
31 March 2019
Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars
1 December 2018
Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill
23 June 2017
Massive paid editing network unearthed on the English Wikipedia
2 September 2015
Orangemoody sockpuppet case sparks widespread coverage
2 September 2015
Paid editing; traffic drop; Nicki Minaj
12 August 2015
Community voices on paid editing
12 August 2015
On paid editing and advocacy: when the Bright Line fails to shine, and what we can do about it
15 July 2015
Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing
24 June 2015
A quick way of becoming an admin
17 June 2015
Meet a paid editor
4 March 2015
Is Wikipedia for sale?
4 February 2015
Shifting values in the paid content debate; cross-language bot detection
30 July 2014
With paid advocacy in its sights, the Wikimedia Foundation amends their terms of use
18 June 2014
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Moderator: William Beutler
11 June 2014
PR agencies commit to ethical interactions with Wikipedia
11 June 2014
Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?
26 February 2014
Foundation takes aim at undisclosed paid editing; Greek Wikipedia editor faces down legal challenge
19 February 2014
Special report: Contesting contests
29 January 2014
WMF employee forced out over "paid advocacy editing"
8 January 2014
Foundation to Wiki-PR: cease and desist; Arbitration Committee elections starting
20 November 2013
More discussion of paid advocacy, upcoming arbitrator elections, research hackathon, and more
23 October 2013
Vice on Wiki-PR's paid advocacy; Featured list elections begin
16 October 2013
Ada Lovelace Day, paid advocacy on Wikipedia, sidebar update, and more
16 October 2013
Wiki-PR's extensive network of clandestine paid advocacy exposed
9 October 2013
Q&A on Public Relations and Wikipedia
25 September 2013
PR firm accused of editing Wikipedia for government clients; can Wikipedia predict the stock market?
13 May 2013
Court ruling complicates the paid-editing debate
12 November 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Founder: Jimmy Wales
1 October 2012
Does Wikipedia pay? The skeptic: Orange Mike
23 July 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Communicator: Phil Gomes
7 May 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Consultant: Pete Forsyth
30 April 2012
Showdown as featured article writer openly solicits commercial opportunities
30 April 2012
Does Wikipedia Pay? The Facilitator: Silver seren
16 April 2012
Wikimedia announcements, Wikipedia advertising, and more!
26 April 2010
License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
15 June 2009
Report of diploma mill offering pay for edits
12 March 2007
AstroTurf PR firm discovered astroturfing
5 February 2007
Account used to create paid corporate entries shut down
9 October 2006
Editing for hire leads to intervention
14 August 2006
Proposal to pay editors for contributions
24 April 2006
German Wikipedia introduces incentive scheme
18 July 2005
What's your background in PR? When did you start? What do you do?
I was nearly a decade in Silicon Valley, mostly representing startups, science- and research-focused organizations and a few enterprise-scale firms. From there I joined the Edelman public relations firm in 2005 and spent 18 months in the firm's LA office. I moved to Chicago in 2007. As Senior Vice President of Digital Integration, I aim to imbue online community principles into the day-to-day communications activities of the firm and its clients. My entire career experience has been as an agency/counselor rather than in-house.
A more interesting story concerns how I started focusing on online communities. You can find that on my blog.
What do you like about public relations? Why do you think it is important? How do you counter the cynicism that public relations is mainly 'spin'?
| “ | "Spin" is most often hurled at an organization as a synonym for "This particular organization, which I'm not disposed to like anyway, has articulated a point of view that I don't agree with." | ” |
The Public Relations Society of America lists six qualities of ethical PR conduct: advocacy, honesty, independence, loyalty, expertise and fairness. How are advocacy and loyalty compatible with honesty, independence, and fairness?
Those terms are not mutually exclusive, and the question is whether you can be a loyal advocate for your client while remaining independent, honest and fair. Everyone deserves to have their point of view heard in the marketplace of ideas, as well as the responsibility to address that marketplace's reaction. PR is the discipline by which that point of view is articulated and dialogue is maintained. And, keep in mind, it's not just businesses that make use of PR. Activist groups and non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") also have very strong communications operations and are adept at articulating their own points-of-view as well and crafting strategies for same. The Wikipedia Foundation itself sought public relations help in mid-2009: [1].
How do you deal with conflicts of interest as a PR professional? Is disclosure standard practice or required by your ethical code or company?
Yes, indeed. Management of potential conflicts is something that we pay a lot of attention to. It's also called out specifically in my employer's code of ethics and business conduct.
Can you give an example of a time when you found yourself with a conflict of interest? How did you navigate it? What were the results?
| “ | We were pretty shocked at how blatant the ask was. ... No amount of money is worth destroying your professional reputation. | ” |
We responded with what we would do with that budget—a long-term plan that would both respect the mores of online communities and help identify and cultivate a fan-base. It was a completely above-board public engagement program that, frankly, would have been an absolute blast to implement. The company wasn't all that interested in an ethical approach, though. We walked away from an opportunity that would have been lucrative. My bosses backed me up at every step of this process.
When and why did Wikipedia come onto your radar as an issue for public relations? What problems did you perceive in the way that Wikipedia currently handles PR professionals or other paid editors?
| “ | Certainly one can point to any number of bad actors in the PR field. I doubt Wikipedia would want to be judged by the worst of its volunteers. | ” |
You wrote an open letter on your blog recommending a sea-change in how Wikipedia treats PR professionals. What motivated that post?
| “ | I felt that the policies of Wikipedia and the channels for remedies are so complex such that they almost try their best to encourage bad behavior. | ” |
What was the response to your open letter, in both PR and Wikipedia communities?
In the first month, people ascribed meaning into my post that they so desperately *wanted* it to have, rather than what it actually said. Some Wikipedians and Web 2.0 royalty seemed to regard it as yet another example of a PR guy who "just doesn't get it." Some PR folks and Wikipedians thought I was advocating the full-on opening of Wikipedia to PR editing; that's equally incorrect. Others used it as a way to resurrect long-held grudges against Wikipedia that are neither of concern nor interest to me. All of this is typical when a group forms around a particular topic that people are very passionate about for different reasons. After about a month, the tourists started to go home and people who are seriously dedicated to exploring this issue remained and continued to participate. What did happen (eventually) was that we are now having some of the most productive, constructive, sustained, wide-ranging, thoughtful conversations about companies' relationship to Wikipedia that we've ever had.
Do you read the conflict of interest guideline as prohibiting all direct paid editing, some editing, or rather permitting any editing that is neutral?
I see COI as an admonition that you shouldn't put your own interests above those of the encyclopedia. That's just and fair. The problem, in practice, is that any editing of Wikipedia by a corporate representative is not likely to be treated as a matter of degree. In any event, you'll notice that CREWE long ago left behind the topic of directly editing an article (even within extremely narrow guidelines). I can't remember the last time someone who wasn't deliberately trying to mischaracterize our work brought it up.
What about how CREWE is seen in the Wikipedia community?
Much of the mischaracterization of CREWE as endorsing direct editing of Wikipedia articles probably comes from my early observation that there's little opportunity for COI damage in an article infobox (e.g., founding date, CEO name, annual revenues) and that it could be a walled-off section for a corporate communicator to update. As it stands today, though, it would be treated more or less like "whitewashing". Critics of a company would then run with "evidence" that company was "changing its entry" even if that edit was as simple as correcting, say, a list of board members. A mainstream press not sensitive to those nuances would quickly run with a "bad company behaving badly" story.
| “ | The conflation of "public relations" and "paid editing" is, frankly, part of the misunderstanding that CREWE seeks to remedy. | ” |
There's a scandal-ridden history of individuals, groups, and companies editing their own Wikipedia articles. Do you understand why there's a high level of opposition and skepticism about encouraging or allowing PR and paid editors on Wikipedia?
Of course. I wouldn't have helped start CREWE with John Cass if I didn't think there was an issue and a capabilities gap that could be solved. I just happen to have a point of view on the matter that many in PR have been too scared to articulate and many Wikipedians dismiss as asked-and-answered without really exploring it.
Wikipedia's foremost principle is neutrality. Public relations officials are accountable to their employers and are hired to improve their profitability and commercial success. How are those two motivations compatible?
As a point of clarification: PR officials aren't specifically on the hook for improving a company's profitability. It can and very often does play a role in terms of positioning a company for commercial success, but the shades of gray in that discussion probably exceed readers' interest. Most reasonable people can agree that, for example, a representative for Union Carbide ought not to be mucking around in the Wikipedia article on Bhopal. That's not what we're talking about here, really.
Early on in the CREWE discussions, someone put the argument that activists don't have a neutrality problem or COI because they don't get paid for being activists. This is wrong on multiple levels, principally:
- Many activist organizations drum up donation money on the basis of their perceived ability to promulgate a certain point of view and to encourage others to do the same.
- An activist—by definition, money or not—exhibits a degree of passion about a topic that typically precludes neutrality or, at least, no more or less so than it might for a PR person.
However, if an accurate article is in the public interest, it doesn't matter if the source of that verifiable information is a PR person, Wikipedian, or dyspeptic chipmunk.
I think some PR people need to recognize that their job isn't to push every positioning point for incremental advantage in every forum. Rather, they should focus on guiding companies to help online communities do better in the spirit of mutual and objective benefit. 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.
What do you think a healthy relationship between the PR community and Wikipedia would look like?
| “ | AGF is not a selective policy, to my knowledge. The fact is that the tactic of publicizing the (admittedly bad) behavior of many corporate communicators on Wikipedia has evidently not been a deterrent and has ultimately resulted in making the issue worse. | ” |
It also requires that Wikipedians not dismiss corporate representatives out-of-hand as "damaged goods". Via CREWE, corporate communicators and Wikipedians are coming together constructively to help companies navigate those waters to the benefit of all involved. CREWE's first output here is a flowchart for doing so—an attempt to harmonize the disparate policies, guidelines, admonitions and whatnot that exist in several different places around Wikipedia.
You and others in the PR community have made the point that many articles on corporations have errors and PR editors are in an ideal position to correct those errors. Media coverage of a recent PRSA study published by Penn State professor Marcia DiStaso characterized the proportion of articles with errors as some 60% (Signpost coverage: here). What's the state of corporate articles and how can PR editors improve it?
The original PRSA announcement and the articles that followed most certainly did not reflect the spirit of CREWE or even the findings of that research. It's not that 60% of articles about companies had errors, it's that 60% of the 1,200+ respondents reported that their companies'/clients' entries had errors. Bit of a difference. The latter is still a very important finding, though. The research should have also been positioned as a wake-up call to the PRSA membership and the PR trade in general. For me, at least, talk-page participation is absolutely "table stakes" when it comes to companies working with Wikipedia. In the survey, 88% of those polled hadn't gone anywhere near a talk page.
As to the state of corporate articles, I point to Robert Lawton's FORTUNE 100 project. 54 out of the FORTUNE 100 were "C" class and below. 98 were "B" class and below. Some students did an audit of what basic facts were outdated or otherwise inaccurate. We now need volunteers to normalize their work into Robert's Google Doc so we can get to the next level of detail. Meanwhile, those same articles show up in the first five results on Google for 88% of companies; 96% on Bing. This, again, is one of Mr. Lawton's findings.
What are CREWE's goals? What are you working on?
The stated mission is simple: "CREWE comprises Wikipedians, corporate communications, academics, students and other interested parties who are exploring the ways that PR and Wikipedia can work together for mutual benefit, defined narrowly as cooperation toward more accurate and balanced entries." The main projects right now are the aforementioned flowchart and the FORTUNE 100 project. We're also allied with Wikiproject:Cooperation and the efforts going on there in terms of mentorship, etc.
Jimmy Wales has been stridently opposed to any paid editors directly editing articles. That so-called "brightline rule" has led him to view CREWE's motivations skeptically, since the group is pushing for broader editing privileges than 'brightline' would provide. What's been your interaction with Wales, and what do you think of his position?
| “ | Jimmy Wales and I have traded emails. We respectfully disagree about things. That's about it. ... Instead of beating people up for doing things wrong, let's reward those who do it right. | ” |
Observably, there are mechanisms for dealing with the unethical ones. Plenty of PR folks who want to do the right thing both by the companies they represent and Wikipedia (or online communities in general). Again, it's clear to me that Wikipedia has reached the absolute limits of the "public shaming" approach. It's simply no longer as effective a deterrent as it once was. This is resulting in what I call "umbrage fatigue." One of the ideas that came up was the notion of case studies posted to Wikiproject:Cooperation, and I think it's a good one. I suspect that this "umbrage fatigue" is why Wikiproject:Cooperation managed to get quite a bit more momentum than another effort spawned around the time CREWE started, WikiProject:PaidAdvocacyWatch.
There's a current of concern that a horde of paid PR professionals is at the gates of the site, that they are using the issue of article inaccuracies as a wedge to get into the community, and that once they do they will overwhelm the unpaid volunteers with their corporate resources, expertise at spinning information, and pro-client bias. What do you say to assuage them of their fears?
I remain curious as to why there's no such anxiety applied to, say, activists or class-action lawyers, both of which are groups that possess the resources, expertise and bias described here, and in ample amounts. I guarantee you, though, that activists and class-action lawyers are not about to create a group dedicated to exploring best-practices a middle ground between their interests and those of Wikipedia volunteers. I'm not naive enough to think that, by itself, this is enough to overcome significant distrust quickly, but it's a start.
Among the negative reactions to your efforts, there have been new roots of cooperation, notably among some of the Wikipedia editors who have joined CREWE and also in WikiProject Cooperation itself. What do you think of those efforts? Will they be able to outweigh the controversy and entrenchment on both sides, or is this situation destined to be deadlocked for years?
Sterling "Silver Seren" Ericsson has done some great work and has been a wonderful asset to CREWE and WikiProject:Cooperation. I'm especially a fan of the mentoring idea. Controversial and mis-marketed though it was, the Penn State research shows that there is plenty of room to grow on both sides. Even the flowchart, humble though it may be, is a significant step. The best thing we can do at this stage is demonstrate that we bring something of value that, in the end, actually helps the encyclopedia.
What do you think Wikipedia is doing wrong?
Wikipedians should consider judging the quality of the contributions. By all means point out when "marketingy" contributions are offered, but don't dismiss the source simply on the basis of how he or she makes a living. For me, it all comes back to, "is the result objectively better?"
Discuss this story
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 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]
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]