Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals/archives/2012/August

Corporate participation on Wikinews

I have a background in public relations and operate a consultancy called EthicalWiki that helps companies contribute quality content to Wikipedia ethically and transparently. I have several years of experience helping companies work with professional journalists in traditional media outlets.

I was curious how/if Wikinews would like to see PR professionals work with them. For example, Honeywell's avionics sometimes saves lives in plane crashes. They will lend their expertise to the media and provide information on the role of Honeywell's avionics. As is the nature of PR, it serves the company well, because they get exposure as a result, while provide information, expertise and just interesting stuff to a news organization.

We "pitch" stories and comments to the media by email and phone. Does Wikinews want corporate participation as a resource for stories? If so, what type of collaboration would you want to see? King4057 (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, User:King4057 has been a mentee of mine over at en.wikipedia. He asked this question of me over there, and in keeping with the encouragement I received from some of you to have such conversations here, I suggested to him to take this up with Wikinews editors directly. For my part, I took David under my wing because he seemed to be playing it straight, he's taken a path which suggests he actually wants to know how to work within existing social norms instead of twist them to advantage, and he's a competent writer. Here's an example of work he's building currently, and here's a diff demonstrating the work he did for the client he mentioned above. IMHO, this is well-written, well-cited, neutral stuff. Because of the AGF on Wikipedia, because he's worked exactly as he pledged to do when I became his mentor, and because he's carefully observed the bright line of not directly editing live pages with which he has COI, I have grown to trust him. Whether he can contribute meaningfully on this project is up to editors here to discuss. I'm too new around here to be able to offer an opinion. BusterD (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

He does good work on Wikipedia. PR professionals would need to disclose everything, and comply with policies on Wikinews. Looking at Wikinews and how it runs, how would both King4057 and BusterD contributing in the context of Wikinews policies? I guess that is the missing link. Wikinews doesn't have the reporting staff to allow us to be pitched too. Can you look at the policies, the guidelines, the community, the style guide and explain, based on those, how you would see collaboration? --LauraHale (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity: I honestly do not see how this is feasible. We do not have enough reporters who can be pitched to. You cannot submit with an obvious COI like that. If the thinking is non-direct editing by being pitched to, this seems a non-starter as we don't have the reporters to allow that. If this is submiting with a COI, that violates policy. Not clear how this would work and unclear if the guidelines were read before making both comments. That guidelines were NOT read strikes me as extremely problematic. --LauraHale (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• BRS has an interest in aviation disasters, so the best contribution I can see is providing contact details for when someone writing on Wikinews could do with expert opinion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 08:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Having a list of experts to turn to if we had questions or needed a comment on a specific topic, that would be handy. On the other hand, help a reporter out does exist. --LauraHale (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Speaking for myself, I want to participate in this project in a normal way, though thus far I've only been able to spend a small amount of time here (or on Wikipedia; I've been busy in August). I'm a voracious news reader. I see myself over the years continuing to help work on and create news articles (I've been seven years on en.wiki). At this point I don't see myself as doing original reporting, but circumstances may change. I certainly didn't start editing here to insert an outside agent; virtually every discussion David and I have had is on wiki, fully viewable. I've never worked for a PR firm or been paid to edit anything; when in the rare case I found myself in conflict, I've disclosed my interest. I did read the Wikinews COI policy and it reads similarly to such guides on other wikiprojects. However, IMHO, there's a stunning amount of undisclosed paid editing on en.wikipedia; while originally it was easier to spot, now sleeper accounts are getting away with it. While deplorable, this situation will inevitably get worse. In that arena, I decided I didn't have the resources to be the police, but could instead encourage ethical participation. So I've been working with David this year, answering questions and giving him mild assignments. So far as I know, he is not himself a content expert outside of public relations, but could provide entry access to content experts if needed. If his sole useful role here is to provide such access, that's a fine contribution to make. BusterD (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • If you're not doing COI news submissions, it shouldn't be an issue. :) Having a list of experts we can ask for assistance wise might be very valuable. :) If that is it, then I think it would be great resource wise. --LauraHale (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The extent of my knowledge of Wikinews is such that I didn't notice it had a COI guideline, which looks very similar to Wikipedia's. Since Wikinews is a news source, I imagine it being basically how PR works with journalists at any publication, providing access to expertise, Q&A interviews, contributed articles, op-eds, etc. Someone nailed this correctly that as PR professionals, we merely facilitate, coach, write, etc. but aren't ourselves experts, except in the art of creating stories that satisfy the media's content needs. I imagine that with each company I work with, I might as well see if they want to be added as a resource for the editors at Wikinews.

A few questions:

1. Where would be the best place for me to start Wikinews' contact list of subject experts and PR contacts?
2. Are there any numbers on how much readership Wikinews gets?
3. Brian, is BRS a person? Forgive my ignorance - wasn't sure what BRS refers to
4. I might be far overreaching, but it seems odd for a news source to have a COI policy, rather than a "how to work with us" guide for PR like most publications have (like these [1][2][3][[4]) and I wonder if this was ported over from Wikipedia for convenience? I only ask because, if Wikinews would find value in it, I would be happy to help contribute to a guide for PR that's more comparable to what news sources use, rather than being more of a Wikipedia-style. King4057 (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Note, we don't publish op-eds. --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@King4057, COI policy is for writers. I was under the impression you were here more for how to submit news and be part of the community instead of how to pitch. Wikinews stories get between 200 and 1,200 stories on the day. I find they then get a total of 1,000 to 4,000 views total in the first week they are published. I would be uncomfortable having you write a PR guide until you've demonstrated you've read Wikinews:Writing an article and Wikinews:Style guide, and then submitted a few articles so you understand how to write articles. After you've done that, it would be fantastic and very much appreciated if you would create such a guide. First though, it would be really great if you could demonstrate you know how Wikinews works. Wikinews =/= Wikipedia. Mastery of one is often a recipe for disaster for mastery of another. --LauraHale (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not that it matters.......but,

....by my count, we've 20 accredited reporters listed on the inactive list. I've made a scant, minimal effort to contact 1 or 2 in an attempt to re-awaken them...as we could use a new jolt of serious reporting 'round these parts. Anyone know anyone listed on the inactive list? Can you e-mail/call/harass/harangue them into stepping back in? If not, we should at least formally remove them as accredited, just for the sake of general housekeeping (just my 2-cents). --Bddpaux (talk) —The preceding undated comment was added by Bddpaux (talk • contribs) 02:45, 26 August 2012‎