Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Flowchart for Corporate Communicators Available for Review/Comment/Editing

All,

I've put up a draft of a flowchart on Creately.Com, intended to help PR people navigate Wikipedia processes and community norms.

It's set up such that anyone can edit it so long as you sign up for a free account.

Freeze-date for v1.0 is March 29, 2012. I will present it in whatever shape its in at the Flourish conference in Chicago on March 30 and the PRSA Digital Impact Conference in NYC on April 3.

Please keep your edits focused on processes related to changes on existing entries, rather than requesting that a new entry be made. (That's likely going to be another diagram.

--Philgomes (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice chart. Perhaps a bit more flexibility on the timing: "Has request been addressed within 48 hours?" is a very short time span. Wikipedia:Edit_requests#Response_time lists a 2007 study where the average response time was 23 hours, but a lot has changed since then. I'm unsure if any specific waiting time could ever be agreed upon, but it'd at least be measured in weeks instead of hours or days. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   13:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Phil, I'll just comment kindly, and with every ounce of AGF, that adding your own flowchart with words like "to harmonize" and a nice plug for CREWE - this is the essence of COI editing. A talk page request would have been more appropriate. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 05:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Getting them while they're young: User warning templates for COI and COI username

The following two templates are used to warn editors that they might have a COI or a COI username:

• Template:Uw-coi-username
• Template:Uw-coi

I'll reproduce them here for inspection:

COI username

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (WikiProject Cooperation) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

1. It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
2. Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

COI

Hello WikiProject Cooperation. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Discussion

I think both of these templates are currently a missed opportunity. For one, they suggest caution not guidance. Two, they don't link to our best help material. Three, they say nothing about WikiProject Cooperation or Paid Editor Help. If were were going to try and update these templates (and get consensus to do so) (or write some new ones) what would you want them to say? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly something like this: "There are tools and pages dedicated to helping editors with a conflict of interest collaborate with neutral editors, such as {{request edit}}, the paid editor help page and the conflict of interest noticeboard. King4057 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good. I'd also like to link to WP:PSCOI, rather than the Business FAQ, but I'm biased since I worked on it. Thoughts? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! It's probably the single best document for "guidance" rather than "caution" I've seen on Wikipedia. I brought it up on my blog post on PR-Squared as one of the valuable instructional documents on Wikipedia that PR people need to read before editing. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 02:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the AfC page might deserve a link too. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 05:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bright Line

I stub'd a new essay Wikipedia:Bright Line about the engagement strategy of "Do not edit articles directly". Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   19:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking we should create an essay on how to categorize and respond to paid editors. There's mountains of documentation on how to handle your own COI, but not on how to handle someone else's. I've seen a few discussions along the lines of "how do we categorize paid editors?" One of the paid editors PAIDWATCH found out, who was editing anonymously, had petitions for unblock repeatedly denied until ArbCom stepped in. There were some comments along the lines of people who didn't really know how they were suppose to handle it. There was a great presentation along these lines at last year's Wikimania here. I might get started on a draft if others want to chip in. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 06:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Approval?

Hello everyone. I've recently completed an article for a client at User:I'm Tony Ahn/Articles/Rajo Laurel. According to the protocol I've set up and am testing with various stakeholders, I'm asking if an editor with no COI could please evaluate the article and if it passes your review, please move it to mainspace. I invite you all to learn more about this public relations professionals editing process, which is in trial mode. This is the first article to be released under this protocol. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, just at a first glance, I note that most of the Galas, exhibitions, and collections section is unreferenced. You should probably fix that and really try to reference it with secondary sources and not primarily to his website. Silverseren^C 18:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Completely unsourced articles are put up as stubs, and that's okay, because anyone can improve them. The reason that PR professionals can't directly edit is primarily because of WP:NPOV and WP:N concerns. That's what people should be reviewing for. If its notable and neutral, it should be okay to move. Unless the reviewer is a deletionist, I suppose. Regarding your specific concern, his website is an appropriate source as per WP:SELFSOURCE. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Copying to paid editor help. Will respond there. Silverseren^C 23:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed vs. variable width templates

A few minutes ago, I added one of the WP:CO-OP templates to the Talk page of the newly-created article Michael Feldman (consultant), beneath also-relevant WP:BIOG and {{Connected contributor}} templates. And it reminded me of something I'd noticed awhile back: the transcluded templates are variable width, while the WP:CO-OP one is fixed at 600px. Does anyone here know how to make our templates variable width—or better yet, make them fully transcluded? WWB Too (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be nice and I have no idea how to do it. We might want to ask at the Help Desk. Silverseren^C 21:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll ask. WWB Too (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Removing the width setting in the style field will make the box flow like the others.[1][2] - Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   09:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

So it does—thanks much! WWB Too (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Real talk page template

Just created Template:WikiProject Cooperation, copied from the code that was on the front page. To use just add {{WikiProject Cooperation}} to the appropriate place on an articles talk page. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   20:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks for taking the initiative here. I just tested it by replacing the old template on Talk:Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, and it works perfectly. Great job! WWB Too (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

And now with the template created, we can start doing some automated tracking. I signed up the project for Wikipedia:Article alerts (see listing). Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   07:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Article alerts for the tracking page. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   19:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

New essay on how to respond to COI editors

I just started throwing it together. Do folks think an essay like this would be helpful? It categorizes financial COIs into undisclosed, hopeless, needs help and productive, defines each category than instructs editors on how to respond to each one. It seems to me there is mountains of documentation on how to deal with your own COI, but not on how to deal with someone else who has one. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 07:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this essay has potential. Would you consider mentioning how to deal with "non-editing editors" (individuals with a disclosed COI who refrain from editing articles)? Occasionally when someone with a COI proposes something on a Talk page, other uninvolved editors simply say 'go ahead and make the change' -- even in situations where the COI editor indicates that they prefer to leave the direct editing to unbiased editors. Obviously WP:COI does not currently prohibit direct editing, but it would be helpful if non-COI editors understood that some COI "editors" may prefer to stick to the talk pages. Thoughts? --Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually recently realized the COI guideline has a section on how to handle COIs that could probably be improve instead. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

A very specific list of non-controversial edits in mainspace

Hi everyone. I started a draft essay at User:Eclipsed/A very specific list of non-controversial edits in mainspace. It's an attempt to list very specific instances of non-controversial edits in mainspace, with examples. It's not complete, nor has the community agreed to anything listed there. That's why You can edit the draft right now and improve it. Thanks. Eclipsed   (talk)   (COI Declaration)   13:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you're doing this, Eclipsed. If Jimbo's bright line does not become policy, or is not written into WP:COI, then a more specific description of "non-controversial" edits could be very useful.

If I may, here's a broad suggestion: I think the list should be very conservative in what's included. For example, what constitutes a BLP violation, vandalism or even spam can be debatable. And some listed edits may hold greater potential for controversy than might first appear, such as adding tags. I've even had trouble, on rare occasion, after making edits previously agreed-to on Talk pages.

However, some of these I think are spot on, particularly: infobox updates related to objectively verifiable, template-invited facts; fixing typos; adding standard templates; adding interwiki links; and re-activating categories (!). The more janitorial the allowed edits, the more likely editors who generally oppose COI activity may see the value.

That said, it's worth noting that when I made the case for allowing non-controversial direct edits by COI editors, Jimbo did not take the suggestion kindly (Ctrl-F: With respect to Jimbo's position). For now, I'm observing the bright line in my own on-wiki activity. One more thought: you may also wish to bring this to the RFC on COI. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I like the concept of janitorial edits. Might be good idea to add commentary about the possibility for controversy per each specific edit type. Janitorial type edits would then be classified at the lowest end of the controversy spectrum.

If the bright line does become policy, then of course this essay should be marked as {{failed}} and we should all move on. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Right, as long as WP:BRIGHTLINE remains a "best practice" and not required by guideline or policy, then it's fair to note the difference. And when it comes to making direct edits, YMMV: it can be done, though not without risk, and one had better hope that Jimbo doesn't find out. Of course, as I noted in my reply over here, even avoiding the mainspace is no guarantee of avoiding controversy. Better to explain the risks and let individuals decide for themselves. WWB Too (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I took the liberty of moving the draft essay to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Non-controversial edits. Please feel free to improve and expand. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reward board link

Wondering why the link to Reward board was moved since it exists and it's clearly related to paid editing. Whether one likes it or not or whether it's controversial or not is another matter. One could say the same for this page. Woz2 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it sure does exist. And it has a complicated history with paid editing, I'd even call it a controversial history. The ongoing, ongoing WP:RFC/COI has some talk about the Reward board, see Wikipedia:RFC/COI#Statement_by_John_Vandenberg (WP:Reward board and WP:Bounty board are useless, and should be marked as {{historical}}) and Wikipedia:RFC/COI#View_by_Ocaasi (reward board could prohibit financial compensation and only allow neutral editing "trades"). And lots of historical discussion spread around in various places. Above all, the Reward board is a cause of confusion when paid editing is mixed in, and I suggest the link stays off for now -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED Woz2 (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS ;) -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Wondering why my suggested task was deleted

I made a suggestion on how the backlog can be cleared:

• • Quid pro quo page like DYK - Paid editor states "Since my last request, I've done blah blah blah pro bono work guided by WP:PSCOI. Please give priority to looking at my Request edit." Set the expectation that the outcome will be the same, only the response time will be shorter.

...but it was deleted. Wondering why?

Woz2 (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did you make it, here? I don't see it in the history. Silverseren^C 18:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

On the task list on front page. See[3] -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 18:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rename: WikiProject Transparency

What do folks think about renaming this project? May I suggest:

WikiProject Transparency

Reasoning:

• Transparency is a core concept at Wikipedia, built into the very platform itself: editor contribution lists (ie: Special:Contributions) and the 'History' function on every single page are prime examples
• Transparency of paid editors (broadly construed) is a concept that has strong consensus, even if the details of how to do it are fuzzy.
• WikiProject Cooperation and WikiProject Cooperatives are too easily confused. Plus WP:COOP and WP:CO-OP are easy to mix up.

Disclosure: One of my clients has a company offering transparency-related services. I also do pro bono work on topics related to transparency. Ping me on my talk page if you want details. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 10:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But transparency has nothing to do with what this Wikiproject actually does. We advocate for transparency in terms of those we work with (and even with those we don't), but what we actually do here is cooperate with paid editors and facilitate their requested edits. That's what the title means. As for confusion with Cooperatives, the latter project is pretty much dead, with three whole talk page sections in a year with one or two responses. We only have a link here just as token regards to their name, but their inactivity really means there won't be any confusion. We can remove the hat note link if you'd like. Silverseren^C 16:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove the hat note, maybe it'll help someone find the Cooperatives project and liven it up. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 19:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the project renamed, but I'm not sure Transparency is quite it. Maybe we should kick around a few names? I could see something about COI education... User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 05:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

COI backlog elimination drives

The COI Backlog Elimination Drives are one-month-long efforts to reduce the backlog of articles that require cleanup due to conflict of interest issues, signified with the {{COI}} tag.

Interested in helping out? See the stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/COI backlog elimination drives for more info. Thanks! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I clicked on the one at the bottom and only found a contentious argument on an article that probably needs to be AfD. But I'm always encouraging folks - if you find a COI that is humble and just needs a little help, I'm always willing. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 05:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

CREWE suggestion box

I'm sure many folks here lurk on the CREWE facebook group, and of course some project members already participate in discussions there. But the group has no central place for communications on-Wikipedia. So I suggest we host a "suggestion box" for CREWE. I pinged User:Philgomes about the idea, and made a stub suggestion box setup on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/CREWE suggestion box. What do folks think of the idea? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 15:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would it be a CREWE suggestion box and not just a suggestion box? User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Good question. Of course in general, any talk page could be considered a suggestion box. CREWE has already established an off-Wikipedia space for the group. But there is no unified on-Wikipedia area for discussions about the group. Many individuals in the group are active here and already participate in discussions, but some do not.

Personally, I do not enjoy using facebook and try to use it as little as possible. I don't much care for walled garden social media platforms. I've already been pinged once on my talk page about a discussion there, which was an inspiration to create the suggested on-Wikipedia suggestion box. And I've submitted the first real suggestion, about a public comment I read there that I thought was very wrong.

But this isn't intended to be a noticeboard about problems in articles (which is being discussed elsewhere now) It's intended to be a place to join in the CREWE discussions without having to leave Wikipedia. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 06:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree; Facebook is an entirely in-effective platform for meaningful discussion compared to Wikipedia. I've almost entirely stopped using Facebook since their most recent changes - yuck!

A while back Jimbo said he asked them to move to a Wikiproject. I presume they denied his request? I don't want to see CREWE and Wikiproject Cooperation muddled together. What about creating a CREWE Wikiproject or some other project space?

I'm not sure how much participation you'll get. PR people aren't very familiar with using Wikipedia and I suppose that's kind of the heart of the issue really. It would be interesting to see the edit histories of those involved. ;-)

I've heard they've talked about me in the group too, but haven't bothered to look.(saw your note to Phil) You're not the only one that struggles to be civil. ;-) User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the latest signpost article was the shark jump for crewe. I hope I'm wrong.

As for the suggestion box, If it doesn't get any more use, then it should probably be removed as a waste of time and effort. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 07:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, PhilGomes keeps plugging in his flowchart under the Education section, but this is a CREWE effort and not a Wikiproject Cooperation effort. Nor do project spaces normally have attribution like that. The extent of Wikiproject Cooperation's participation in this flowchart is almost nothing. I believe there was prior consensus that Wikiproject Cooperation and CREWE remain separate. While PR people may find the chart useful - and all the power to them if they do - I would prefer to link to actual policies, guidelines and essays that represent project-wide consensus(ish). We are not in a position to endorse documentation created by four editors as part of a lobbying effort. I am not appreciative of Phil's direct editing to use the project as a vehicle to promote his thought-leadership on the topic. Isn't this the epitome of COI in the first place? ;-)

Maybe there should at least be some discussion on whether we want to endorse this flowchart and if we feel it is compliant with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I haven't actually looked at it yet. In any case, we should take off Phil's signature. Editors don't get credit for their contributions to Wikipedia. That's just how it works. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the original conversation string, maybe there needs to be a place to talk about CREWE/PR people within the community regardless of whether PR people from CREWE participate? I've encouraged a few people to consider an RFC to create a community-written official response to CREWE. Even if their approach and actions are horrifically wrong, there is a problem that needs to be solved and a conversation that needs to take place. As of now there is no single place for that conversation to take place, I suppose except for the messy COI RFC. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy/guideline

So do we have any sort of consensus-supported policy on what is acceptable and what isn't with regards to paid editing? WP:PAID redirects to Wikipedia:Paid advocacy which doesn't seem to be backed by any form of wide scale consensus (I remarked on it here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a long history involving several attempts to create a paid editing policy, but none were considered to have reached consensus :-( I think for now it falls under financial COI in the COI guideline. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 04:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions

I know we originally discussed not getting involved in policy discussions, because we felt current policies and guidelines were adequate and are committed to upholding them. However, I have seen two very solid themes emerge:

• The COI RFC by Arbcom represents a need to improve the clarity (not actually change, but improve the clarity) of the COI Guideline.
• Several people have brought up the need to create BLP-like policies for company articles. I would much rather see Wikipedia empower volunteers to create more neutral articles themselves, rather than invite paid editors to argue for balance.

I'm not saying a bunch of us should march over demanding policy changes under a Wikiproject Cooperation flag, but it's worth discussing if the project should have a position on these and/or start relevant discussions - perhaps in a civil collaboration with PaidWatch. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Huffington Post Article

A really great, knowledgeable, balanced and civil post on the issue of PR pros on Wikipedia: PR: If You Want to Understand Wikipedia, Become a Wikipedian

It has a link to draft best practices guidelines for PR. Just sharing.

User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

COI noticeboard thread about a possible paid consulting position

I'd love to get some feedback on this: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Paid_consulting_for_a_deletion_review. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

On the whole, I think that if you take this project on and apply the same level of care and balance to it that you have in the past, it could be a helpful case study to show how a Wikipedian can be trusted handle a financial conflict of interest just as they should handle an ideological conflict of interest--by not allowing it to compromise their ability to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It may also set an example of how editors should take time to learn the community firsthand (like you have) before they consider proposing changes to articles where they have a financial conflict of interest.

The main caveat of this is that some other Wikipedians will never view you in the same light. I'm sure you are well aware of that. Putting myself in the shoes of these folks, I think they may see it as a slippery slope. Your decision to take on an arrangement like this is not necessarily problematic on its own; however I think some may be afraid of the message that this could send to the broader volunteer community of editors out there. If Wikipedia has 77,000 active editors in a month and several thousand suddenly decided to begin editing articles where they have a direct financial COI, this could potentially create a larger problem by altering the volunteer-centric culture of the community.

Those are my thoughts. The decision is certainly up to you. That said, I think Wikipedians are a brilliant bunch, and the editor community tends to respect those who are honestly 'here to build an encyclopedia.' If you make it clear to others that you're doing this in a way that advances the aims of Wikipedia, I think you'll find sufficient (though not universal) support. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

New major contributions page

I went ahead and created a new page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Major Contributions to list the Wikiproject's accomplishments. I thought it was about time that we set up one. Silverseren^C 18:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a potential issue with advertising... User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In what manner? I thought it was both a good measure of the Wikiproject's accomplishments and an act of transparency, because others can then know that these are the primary articles to look at, if they have concerns about COI. Silverseren^C 01:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The list is a good idea, and is similar to lists on other WikiProjects. Great initiative! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

New userbox

I made a new userbox, if anyone is interested in it. This one can be used by people who aren't a part of the Wikiproject as well, just to show their support. Silverseren^C 21:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

{{Paid editing supporter}}

This editor is a Wikipedian that supports paid editing and its contributions to Wikipedia.

It may need a qualifier of some kind. Hardly anyone supports paid editing in every possible circumstance. Like "supports paid editors, that respect Wikipedia's rules." or something similar. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 05:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I consider the difference to be that paid advocacy is the bad kind, while paid editing is the one that has people that follow the rules. That's how I differentiate the terms, at least. Silverseren^C 05:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't really like the term paid advocate, because we're not being "advocates" if we're correcting spelling. However, paid editing is also too broad, because it includes projects like GLAM. I think the Financial COI section of the COI guideline is the most on-target. I started a discussion on the Talk page of the COI guideline about adding some reference to a "Professional COI." But in any case - whichever words are used - I wouldn't even myself put such a broad tag on my user page without a "certain forms of" or "when it supports Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals" or something. Up to you. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a bit much to fit into the infobox as it is, without stretching it or shrinking the text a fair amount. Since it links to CO-OP, which states what you just said, I think it's fine as it is. If people want to take it the wrong way, that's their problem. The people that do take it the wrong way are the ones that would be trying to do so on purpose anyways. Silverseren^C 17:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"This editor supports paid editing when it contributes to Wikipedia's encyclopedic goals" User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi King4057,

Seren's text does not state "This user supports all paid editing", so there is no need to qualify it. (When a quantifier is missing, English defaults to the existential quantifier "some". For example, the statement "boys like girls" does not exclude the case that "some boys like boys and don't like girls".)

We do not qualify statements about amateur editing to exclude vandals and POV-pushing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The graphic image is nice, and similar to the solidarity images in the logos of the AFL-CIO or Democratic Socialists of America. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested articles about companies

Companies

Welcome to the Requested articles list for Companies. This list is for requests for new articles about notable for-profit companies, businesses & corporations, no matter where based, whether public or private, existing or merged or liquidated.

All requests must contain RELIABLE, INDEPENDENT, THIRD PARTY SOURCES. Those without will be removed. (Note: press releases, the company's website, social media sites, and blogs are NOT reliable, independent sources.)

Please add requests to the appropriate area:

This list is only for requests about for-profit companies.

• For topics related to companies, please add to /Business and economics
• For biographies of people in business, please add to /People in business
• For non-profit organizations, please add to /Organizations

Find this page confusing? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

Click a letter in the above box to view the requests. This page was too large and has been divided.

As part of the new WikiProject Requested articles, I'm helping with cleanup of the Companies request list. Besides the usual cleanup tasks, I also created a /Companies/Workspace as a place for prep and discussion of possible stubs. Your comments on the proposed stubs, and the new WikiProject, are most welcome. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

You have way more initiative than I do, but this is a great idea. Amazing work so far. Maybe you should link it around to the Companies Wikiproject and maybe some other places? Silverseren^C 22:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted the same message at WikiProject Companies, and hopefully it will perk some interest. There will be a general announcement about WikiProject Requested articles, but the details are still being worked out. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Grooveshark

Hi!

Please review my edits on Grooveshark regarding WP:RS and WP:Advert.

Also, the first section of the article's body reads like advertisement, and I don't have the stomach to re-write it.

There has been ongoing discussion on that Talk:Grooveshark regarding alleged copyright infringements between Grooveshark and Discipline Global Mobile (DGM). I have added reliable sources to The New York Times, Billboard, and The Guardian, that discuss the conflict. (However, as an editor of DGM, I would prefer to avoid adding such material.)

Previous discussions of this conflict (with references to DGM's website) were removed, although there is extensive quotation from the Grooveshark website and its spokespersons. IPs have shown an interest in the article.

Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I left this message at WikiProject Record Labels and am leaving it here, because of the expertise of SilverSeren and other editors and the diversity of those watching this page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is the series of edits, for easy perusal. The only thing I would note, Kiefer, is that Citation needed tags don't apply when there's a primary source attached, since that is still a citation. You might be better off removing those and adding a section based tag to the subsection from Template:Primary sources. Other than that though, you did a good job of making your changes neutral, though I will note that the article as a whole is a bit too weighted toward the lawsuits at the moment, though that's no fault of your own. Silverseren^C 00:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I made more edits. From my searching on Time Magazine, The New York Times, and even some trade sites, I judge that Grooveshark is discussed in high quality reliable sources mainly for copyright, royalty, and other legal issues. Others may find the Grooveshark article of interest, for many reasons. I have never seen an article that had a long discussion of licensing, which omitted that the major company signing a license deal did so only after having filed one lawsuit and then filed another lawsuit claiming that it had never been paid any royalties, when such facts were discussed in the sources already cited! Or that quotes the CEO at length about their compliance with copyright (usually expeditiously) and fails to quote the NYT statement that "hundreds of thousands" of complaints have been ignored (i.e. the song is removed for a minute and then reappears within 24 hours), according to many artists' representatives. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BusterD mentoring

I sorry to have to do this: We need to discuss if User:BusterD is an appropriate mentor with this project. Based on their recent actions at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safetray (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Safetray
• User talk:Carolinewhitham#Due diligence

It seems to me that BusterD is inappropriately using User:Carolinewhitham and their contributions as a battleground, and this is not something a WP:CO-OP mentor should be doing. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 08:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If social norms have changed so much that discussing legitimate COI issues is regarded as incorrect behavior in this WikiProject, it is possible I shouldn't be mentoring. IMHO, I have in no way violated battleground, have been civil to all participants, have discussed issues already raised in the AFD discussion. It appears my use of the word "reward" has struck a negative chord with some, but in my mind the issue remains. After the original "strongly discouraged" edits, the page in question has been edited in a way consistent with policy. It's clear the nominator and one other editor share at least some of my concerns in the AfD procedure. The "bright line" to which Jimmy Wales once referred is about user behavior; it is difficult to discuss specific COI edits without referring to the editor advancing their own interest. BusterD (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

On re-read, I see I assigned a motive, and have since struck through that part of my delete assertion. In this way User:Eclipsed's reading is correct. BusterD (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you seriously believe that a notable article subject should be deleted merely because of COI involvement? If so, then you are not only at odds with this Wikiproject, but also all of Wikipedia. If we followed that logic, then that would mean we can now never have an article on the subject because someone with a COI was involved, which is, as i've said before in other deletion debates where someone tried to use that reasoning, one of the most ridiculous and asinine reasoning that could possibly be made. If the article needs to be re-written for promotional issues, then rewrite it, but a notable article subject should never be deleted. And it seems, in this case, it was rewritten with the help of an admin, so there shouldn't be a problem anymore. Silverseren^C 21:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

And I note that since this incident, User:BusterD has shown willingness to accept criticism and examine their actions. I have great respect for that, and they should be commended. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 11:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

UK Chartered Institute of Public Relations: Wikipedia guide

I came across this today:

http://www.cipr.co.uk/sites/default/files/CIPR_Wikipedia_Best_Practice_Guidance.pdf

...it is a snap shot (as of midnight on Sunday 24 June, 2012) of a "living draft" wiki page:

http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR

...it looks like a fairly good set of guidelines to me. However, it seems that the CIPR is unaware of this Wikiproject. I left a message on the talk page mentioning the Wikiproject here. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 00:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

tld?

We mark a request edit as done by prefixing "tld|". But what does tld mean? The best reverse engineering I could do was "template logic disable." I searched and couldn't find anything. Any pointers? Just curious... Woz2 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It means "Template link dialup-host" (see {{tld}}); however, I hate using it. Why don't we create something that is similar to the other edit request templates where you mark it as answered? At a minimum we should be using {{tlx}}. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Boy, that's geeky. We ask non-programmers (PR professions, etc.) to engage with us using the template. How about {{request edit|status=requested}}, {{request edit|status=done}},{{request edit|status=declined}} Woz2 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On semi-protected pages, there's a template {{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} that could be leveraged. Woz2 (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the first step and created the answered template Template:Request edit/answered. I'd prefer just two parameters, requested (or blank) and answered, just because it is easier. King and I have been discussing creating some decline templates similar to {{ESp}}. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Big improvement. Thanks! I do like some of the features of the existing one, like the backlog size, and the link to the backlog page. It helps set expectations to requestors. Woz2 (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Also would be nice for a category of answered edits, so I updated Template:Request edit/answered to include Category:Answered requested edits. The blank or answered setup is ok, but I'd prefer blank(=requested), accepted, and declined. Thoughts? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 15:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

What we could do is create another template and if the parameter was set to declined it would bring that one up. I assume the template would be red to set it apart? Unless someone else wants to toy with all of this, I'll work on it tonight. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I was doing a bit of talk page stalking and came across this related thread: User talk:Fluffernutter#Need technical help Woz2 (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Sort by request date?

On a related topic to the above, does any one know how to set the default sort on Category:Requested_edits to request date, oldest first? Right now it is "Alabama first" which is not very informative. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I spent some time looking into this. The AFC project has a table that's organized and allows you to sort by date. It's generated by a BOT and it says to ask this guy for questions about how it works. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I pinged him asking if he could help us do the same for request edits. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You can now sort request edits by date | here User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 01:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

COI+ certification proposal

I've thought of an idea that might break our current logjam with paid editing. I'd love your sincere feedback and opinion.

• WP:COI certification

Feel free to circulate this to anyone you think should know about it, but please recognize that it hasn't agreed upon by either PR organizations or WikiProjects or the wider community. It's also just a draft, so any/many changes can still be made. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Templates

I'm working on an AFC-like process for request edits, but need technical assistance if anyone wants to help with templates. My hope is to make decline templates, sandbox templates and similar tools, processes and instructions to those in the AFC process, so we can streamline the process. This creates a way to give the submitter feedback in a concise template, rather than long drawn out conversation strings. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 21:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Noun got us started User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 05:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

New accept/decline templates for {{request edits}} are all done. You can see the updated documentation at Template: Request edit or check out our draft instructions here. This should help create an AfC-like process for COI submissions to pre-existing articles. Reviewers who don't want to make edits on a COI's behalf can use {{request edit | D | A}} to approve the edit but ask the COI to make them themselves. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI+

I posted here about WP:COI+ once before, but there's been a lot of development over the past months to make it a more streamlined proposal. I'd love you to take a look and leave feedback.

I intend for COI+ to seek a middle ground between the current ambiguity of WP:COI and the severity of Bright Line prohibitions on any direct editing. This is particularly important because the community has identified that there is some problem with WP:COI but also found no consensus to outright ban paid editing.

• The 2009 RfC to ban paid editing closed with no consensus.
• The 2012 RfC on COI closed with no consensus as well.
• For as many people who have supported a prohibition on direct editing there is another editor who calls COI a distraction and cites WP:NPOV as the only relevant policy.

For those reasons, I simply don't believe that Bright Line will ever gain consensus. I also happen to think it's not ideal, as it could drive paid advocates under ground, it has no requirement for disclosure, and it offers no reasonable assurance to paid advocates of a timely response to their suggested changes.

COI+ is designed to address each of those concerns:

• COI+ would appeal to paid advocates by welcoming them to the community, educating them about our mission and policies, and guiding them towards constructive interaction;
• COI+ would require disclosure--in triplicate--on user pages, relevant article talk pages, and with links to COI declarations in comment signatures
• COI+ would set a 1 month time limit on edit requests: if no editor even responded to a paid advocate's suggestions or proposed changes within a month--after going through talk pages, help boards, noticeboards, and OTRS--then a paid advocate could make a change directly, if they left clear notice on the article talk page and at the COI noticeboard.

I am drafting a Signpost op-ed introducing COI+ to run in the next month or two, with an RfC to follow. At first COI+ would merely be an aspirational, voluntary agreement. It could, however, be a bridge forward towards a more comprehensive, instructive, and hopefully effective guideline for COI editors and particularly paid advocates. I'd love to hear any thoughts you have about it. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It's a worthy proposal. I support seeking a way to engage the COI people on a more friendly basis; they are not the demons that some paint them to be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:COI RfC

Of interest: An RfC on our COI guideline for editors with an "intractable" conflict of interest. -- Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Template

I Made a new template. Haven't deployed it yet, and awaiting discussion and (good-faith) improvements from any quarter. It is called {{Corrupt (organization)}} and looks like this: {{Corrupt (organization)}} It's currently up for deletion, here, in case anyone's interested. (Anyone who is actually doing paid work here on Wikipedia is, I assume, disinvited, since this is basically a policy discussion.) Herostratus (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, look

This signpost article might be of interest here.

I dunno. Involvement of professional reputation-management agents in the Wikipedia is a complicated issue, I guess. It's certainly contentious, anyway. You know, I can see the point in permitting someone to post on a talk page about a narrow specific issue. "Full disclosure, I'm a PR rep working for MegaCorp, and statement X is wrong, let's fix it" or "...statement X is unfair, can we talk about this?" and so on. I have mixed feelings about that, but I can see the argument for allowing it.

But one thing seems pretty clear: the deal where a PR agent posts a substantial rewrite of an article or section to be pasted over the existing article or section by someone else, or creates a new article to be posted by someone else, has just flat-out got to stop. This is a complete abuse of the spirit and intent of Bright Line. It could work in theory, I suppose, if you squint really hard and make a lot of assumptions that I wouldn't make myself. But it doesn't work in practice. I don't want to name any names, but if I say that certain editors are poodles for anything some reputation-management agent wants posted, you can probably connect the dots.

You need to police yourselves here, people. For starters, I would say that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/Paid Editor Help needs to be deleted soonest. If you can find a way to reform it instead, fine. One or the other, though. Herostratus (talk) 06:23, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The German court ruling is indeed something of interest, but the actual effect on the English Wikipedia is not clear yet.

For your comments about the review process: . Could you give some specific examples that you feel are relevant to this discussion? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 21:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

The actual effect on the English Wikipedia is not clear yet. That is true. However, one of these two things is true: either 1) it is actually illegal, as a form of fraud, to present advertising (or pubic relations material etc.) provided by a company as if it were editorial content. Or, 2) it is not illegal to do this, but it is still extremely sleazy. Speaking for myself, I don't see that much difference between #1 and #2, but if other editors are of the opinion that anything we can legally get away with in deceiving our readers is OK, they may feel differently. I don't see any real point in pulling a fast one on our readers. If the money accrued to the Wikipedia and the Wikipedia made the conscious choice to operate as a sleazoid flimflam operation in order to enhance income in the short term, then it would make a kind of sense I guess. But neither of those are true, so color me puzzled.

As to the latter, I'll provide some examples as soon as I can. I'm busy, and have zero interest in policing you people. But I will if I have to, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a False dilemma, please contribute to the discussion without using fallacies. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI) 19:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There are comparable laws in the US by the Federal Trade Commission that regulate astroturfing. I don't think the court case in Germany offers a lot of clarity even in Germany, because whether the act is punishable by law would vary by individual circumstance. However, at the very least, marketing professionals are required by law and ethics codes to disclose their affiliation online and I think honorable companies that typically adopt this practice often forget about it on Wikipedia. CorporateM (Talk) 15:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see User:CorporateM take on a mentee of his own

I've been working with/watching over CorporateM for over a year. I think it would be hard to describe him as a troublesome user, not without flaws, but certainly he's enthusiastic and a good wiki-citizen. I was especially proud of how he handled himself when confronted by a user who was following his work specifically because of admitted COI efforts. CorporateM shows himself again and again to be patient, friendly, hardworking, difficult (yet not impossible) to frustrate. Over time he's demonstrated an understanding of appropriate noticeboards, social norms, project rules and guidelines. His page work is exemplary. As a continuing part of his learning process, I'd like WikiProject Cooperation to discuss whether it would be appropriate to allow him to mentor other new wikipedians, and especially whether he might be a good mentor toward future COI-related contributors. I'd first want him to help out at the COI Noticeboard, but ultimately I'd like him to take mentees for WP:CO-OP. Anybody have strong objections? BusterD (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Help needed at Soverain Software

Although it galls me to post this, there's a shill looking for help over at Soverain Software. I can't deal with it, so it's only fair to ask here is someone else will. I'll keep a loose eye on it, but my main request is that the lede continue to make it clear that the most interesting and important thing about them is that they're patent trolls and rent seekers. If you want bury this fact in a pile of rubbish in the main body, be my guest, but let's at least the leave the lede clear. More background at the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Abacus Consulting

Any chance of some eyes on Abacus Consulting. There's an editor who has been trying to add a lot of unsourced material. Additionally, a corporate account User:Abacus Consulting has been editing. I've username-blocked that user and warned the user adding the unsourced material. An extra pair of eyes to source check and cleanup the article would be helpful. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Kidkel69

I'm not sure if this WikiProject takes this sort of thing on, but Kidkel69 (talk · contribs) is currently indefinitely blocked for what appears to be good faith, but promotional content. I tried to offer the best advice I could, but you might have a better approach. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. Unblocked. I have directed them to this project. Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Me too (not that I want him here, but it'd not be right to obfuscate to that end). His page is out of chronological order, your comment was at the top and I missed it. Herostratus (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, their page is out of chronological order. They started posting their unblock requests at the top. I considered reordering their user talk page for them but decided not to confuse them further. Bovlb (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

NOJA Power Corporate Page

Hi, was wondering whether there is anyone in this talk who is interested in creating and editing NOJA Power's Corporate Wiki page? www.nojapower.com.au. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyDavis03 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Help requested on Thomas Hodges (artist)

On Talk:Thomas Hodges (artist), Expoarts (talk · contribs) is looking for help from an editor with experience in the fine arts to help bring the article up to date. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

grant request related to participation in a PR summit about Wikipedia

Hi all -

I just submitted a request to WMF's travel support program to participate in an upcoming summit in DC aimed at working on getting some top PR firms to agree to a statement of ethics w/r/t their relationship with Wikipedia. The TPS program accepts community endorsements in considering grant requests, so if you feel like this would be a worthwhile expenditure of WMF funds, more details can be found here, and an endorsement would be appreciated ;)

Best, Kevin Gorman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Gorman (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:CO-OP

Hi folks. With a small team of editors, I'm building a mentorship space that we are called The Wikipedia Cooperative, or the Co-op, as a part of an Individual Engagement Grant (see here). As such, I was hoping to be able to use the redirect WP:CO-OP that is currently pointing here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think to click this from my watchlist at the time, and I went and undid the redirect. I am hopeful to get some project tasks restarted and there seems to be some resurgence of interest in it so I hope we can keep the redirect, and leave you with "COOP" instead, unless the Cooperatives project also objects. Frieda Beamy (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Frieda Beamy: Can you show me what you mean by "resurgence of interest?" While active in 2012, the project and talk page have not been very active in these past two years, and when comments or questions are posted to the talk page, no responses are given. I'm not suggesting the project be closed, but all I would like is a single redirect, and given the state of the project right now, I do not think it is very much to ask, particularly because the name of our space is "the Co-op". I'd be happy to take care of fixing previous redirects. Also, see these comments from Herostratus in WP:RETENTION. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's the old internet fight over account names. How about we agree to assign COOPS to Cooperatives, you take CO-OP, and we take COOP? By resurgence I mean primarily WT:COI, very active since WP:TOU changed last month; some DYK discussions; and then side conversations and several users making impromptu disclosures of paid status. Our WP:PAIDHELP page is also pretty functional. So I have hopes here just as you do with the Co-op. I dabbed you from the top of this page also. Frieda Beamy (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Frieda Beamy: It is indeed an old and tired internet fight, and so I really appreciate your generosity to resolve the matter. The idea of arguing over redirects is just no fun at all for anyone. I'm happy with having WP:CO-OP and giving you WP:COOP, and thanks for the dab. I can start making the relevant changes. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not happy.

Since that matter has come up, let's address the underlying problem which is the name of this project.

(I realize that this is largely peripheral to what JethroBT is doing and sorry, don't mean to drag JethroBT into what could (but shouldn't and need not) be a contentious question, and JethroBT if you want to bow out on the grounds of "whatever's decided is OK with me" that's fine (you don't have to); and I agree that "arguing over redirects is just no fun at all for anyone" but that doesn't mean that misleading, objectively wrong, or politically-inspired redirects should be passed over in the name of comity. Redirects belong to the Wikipedia generally and since the issue's come up let's fix this.)

In no wise is this project entitled to the the term "Coöperation" or any variants thereof such as shortcuts like WP:COOP.

As I noted elsewhere, "They're marketing people and so they chose Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation instead of something neutrally descriptive like Wikipedia:Commercial Editing Facilitation or whatever because that's how marketing people roll." (It could be put less kindly but there's no need for that since even if your name resulted simply from a good-faith surfeit of naive enthusiasm you're still not entitled to it.)

I know that this sort of thing is very common, which is why the USA PATRIOT act is named that, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is named that, Veryfine Fruit Juice is named that, and so forth. Fine, it's common. That does not make it useful for our purposes here. I also know that by tradition projects are giving reasonably broad latitude in naming themselves, but you exceed that latitude.

"Cooperation" is a very broad concept, far too broad for a narrowly focused project like this. Right? Purely on the merits, you can see the virtue of that point? It tells exactly nothing about what the project is about.

JethroBT's Wikipedia Cooperative, an entirely non-contentious effort, has reasonable claim to redirects associated with the term "cooperative". WikiProject:Cooperatives, an entirely non-contentious effort, has reasonable claim to redirects associated with the term "cooperatives". (Further discussion over which of those two entities gets what redirects may be needed, but that's out of scope for this thread). This project, a very contentious effort, has no claim to the virtues ascribed in the abstract to the concept of "cooperation" generally and no claims to its current name or any associated redirects.

So let's not use the term here, and I request that you relinquish all claims to redirects associated with the general concept of cooperation and furthermore change your name.

How about a name that communicates the thrust and focus of the project in a clear, succinct, and reasonably evenhanded manner?

Wikiproject:Commercial Editing Facilitation, or Wikiproject:Paid Advocacy Assistance, or Wikiproject:Public Relations Support or whatever, these would be fine. Possibly Wikiproject:Brand Management Collaboration or like that. Anything reasonable. Probably better suggestions could be made.

BTW: a project I started as Wikiproject:Paid Editing Watch I renamed to Wikiproject:Integrity, solely because you named yours Cooperation and what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. "Integrity", exactly like "Cooperation", is far too broad and, exactly like "Cooperation", was chosen to inherit unearned virtue from a term that's widely approved of in the abstract. I'm willing to rename that project back to something more useful like either Wikiproject:Commercial Editing Watch or Wikiproject:Paid Advocacy Watch. Or try -- I don't control it, but I think it's something I could get ratified if there's a deal on the table.

OK? Hows that for a deal? Why don't you folks talk amongst yourself, and pick a new name? Then you can have the associated redirects and everybody's happy, and if you're willing to do this, and are reasonable (please don't go with something like Wikiproject:Article Quality Facilitation or whatever), and can implement, I'll do the same at my end, or try my best. Herostratus (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Paid Editor Help currently redirects to this project's help board; I created that a few years back because I had trouble remembering what it was actually being called and that name seemed much more straightforward to remember and give to people. Perhaps extent that to the whole project? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Who are you referring to by saying "they"? Are you calling me a marketing person? Because i'm the one that came up with the name of this Wikiproject on my own and I am the one that built it from the ground up. I picked the name for a reason, to represent a cooperation between Wikipedians and outside entities that wish both to improve Wikipedia's coverage and to see proper representation of themselves and their history. I also picked this name as a direct counterpoint to the Wikiproject you created, as yours was essentially to create a witch hunting atmosphere to drive out paid editors and representatives of individuals, organizations, and companies.

In short, the answer is no. Silverseren^C 01:08, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, OK, relax. First of all, the project I started was called "Paid Editing Watch" until you started in with the "Cooperation" thing; I went with "Integrity" after that.

Second of all, fine, as I said, it doesn't matter why it got this name. Just, it's not a very descriptive name, plus it seems to me like it's pretty much a a "positive branding" kind of name or whatever (I could be wrong about that, would be willing to hear disinterested opinions), whether that's intentional or not doesn't matter. You did build it from the ground up and did a lot of good work, it's a well organized project.

So understandably you're kind of attached to that name, but let's slow down. Fluffernutter seems to be OK with some kind of change, granted he's apparently a talking sandwich. Maybe somebody else will weigh in.

Absent agreement we could go with a Requested Move or an MfD (not for deletion of course, the "D" stands for discussion and renames are eligible outcomes). Either way, we could go with a twinned request to move Wikiproject:Integrity to Wikiproject:Paid Advocacy Watch and simultaneously move Wikiproject:Cooperation to Wikiproject:_______. Problem is I don't know what goes in the _______. I don't like "Paid Editor Help" because "Paid Editor" is not a useful concept since it includes Kindly Old Professor Smith. "Paid Advocacy Help" help you won't like since I gather you don't see your clients as "advocates" but rather simple citizens trying to help put truth in the world or whatever I guess. "Commercial Editing Help" (or "...Facilitation") or whatever? But some of your clients are not commercial entities but rather notable individuals I guess? So what then? Give me a name and we can go to a more populated discussion if you can't settle it here among yourselves. Herostratus (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)