I just recently started Wikiproject Cooperation and I thought you would be interested. Thanks for your time. Silverseren^C 01:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, neat. Will explore more fully after I've had some sleep. Many thanks in setting it up. I just posted about it on the CREWE FB board. --Philgomes (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that, despite the group's statement that they are looking for people with a variety of different backgrounds, my request to join has been rejected on Facebook. This despite the fact that I am a journalist who could contribute to and benefit from the group. Have you any thoughts as to why my request to join the group was not accepted and/or things I could do to better my chances of being accepted into the group? Thanks! Ebikeguy (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ebikeguy... There are several admins and we tend to be a bit more persnickety about pseudonymous accounts. (I think there's maybe only one or two out of the 170 there.) Go ahead and resubmit. Thanks. --Philgomes (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phil, I commented on your blog but don't know if you saw it. I've been working out a solution to the issue with PR professionals editing Wikipedia, and have written an essay detailing the headway I've made and the solution I came up with. I'd be interested in your opinion, and whether or not you think its a step in the right direction. Thanks! I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"exploring the ways that PR and Wikipedia can work together for mutual benefit, defined narrowly as cooperation toward more accurate and balanced entries"

I just thought I'd drop you a note that this is a far more welcomed objective than what it seems to have been in the past. Glad to see it go in this direction if that is the case. Cheers.User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How did you previously understand the objective? --Philgomes (talk) 12:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way several blogs, the media, PRSA, and John Cass have depicted CREWE is as a lobbying group bent on getting direct editing privileges on Wikipedia. This is an aggressive stance for a group of participants new to Wikipedia. It also comes off as very rude and offensive to attack Wikipedia's policies, without knowing what those policies are.

On the other hand, it's my opinion that the objective stated above precludes collaboration - not direct editing - and more education among marketers. Of course, I may agree with the objective stated above, but later disagree with how one proposes to achieve it. This is a good mission statement to use as a launch-pad for more specific objectives anyway.

User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 01:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of what I mean.

"With his grave misunderstanding of our profession, he [Jimbo] has decided that PR people are biased and thus are not allowed to create or edit Wikipedia pages for our organizations or clients – even simple corrections of errors like the misspelling of the CEO’s name. So we are left with a confusing, cumbersome process to do our job when it involves Wikipedia."

This doesn't accomplish anything and only proves an inability to write neutrally. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 00:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... Hadn't noticed this. A bit bent that they're trading on CREWE and my name to book events that I had no knowledge or part of. Chances are pretty good that they aren't quite spun up on the substance of what CREWE is trying to accomplish. It happens, unfortunately. Much as I'd imagine not all Wikipedians are form-fit-function in line with Wikipedia's mission. --Philgomes (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if CREWE were on Wikipedia, I'd suggest a collaborative editing process to develop consensus on a mission statement that objectives can sprout from. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 15:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that would fix the problem for *that* particular audience. In any event, that effort will be on WP:Cooperation. --Philgomes (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. One thing I'll add merely as a comment is that the mission statement only says "accurate" and "balanced," but not "complete." "Accurate" implies factual corrections, "balance" implies flagging libel/defamation, coatrack articles, etc. These are somewhat non-controversial issues for PR professionals to get involved in that aren't complicated.

Were you to add "complete" or encourage direct editing broadly, that is the area where Wikipedians will have a lot of well-deserved apprehension. It takes a lot of work to do that well. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 23:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope all goes well with your presentation at the conference. It'll be interesting to see if it spurs any more news articles. Silverseren^C 06:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SilverSeren. Flourish tends not to be a lightning rod for coverage. (Most student-run conferences aren't.) It *is* however a group that my wife and I have volunteered for since 2008. This year, thanks to my MBA studies, I didn't have the time to continue my role as online ambassador, handling the FB and Twitter accounts. But I *did* get to be a speaker. Unfortunately, thanks to the aforementioned studies, I'll be missing the real meat of the conference, like a beginner's workshop for Arduino. *grumble* --Philgomes (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I suggested the creation of an on-Wikipedia "suggestion box" for CREWE, where folks can make public suggestions to the group. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation#Tasks. Thanks! -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me likey. Thanks! --Philgomes (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worry. Stub at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation/CREWE suggestion box. Cheers. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 15:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, I left a message in the suggestion box about a false statement about myself that was published on your facebook CREWE group. Let me be clear: It's time for YOU and the other members of that facebook group to clean up your(collective) act, immmediately. I expect action on this, otherwise I don't see how I could ever see CREWE as more then just a silly, ineffective joke. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 20:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made a very poor choice of wording in this message. My apologies. Here is a better message:

Phil, I left a message in the suggestion box about an issue I feel needs attention. Could you assist in clearing up this matter? -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)

It would be helpful if you could point me to the statement itself on the FB group so I can get the context. I've read the suggestion box item and it seems that there's a disagreement about the policy-ness of "brightline." Inaccurate, perhaps, but I don't yet see how this misunderstanding could be damaging to any individual. (Particularly a pseudonymous one.) Not trying to be difficult. Just would appreciate some help here if you feel you've been wronged somehow. --Philgomes (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the false statement was posted in the thread "Worth watching: Jimmy Wales is creating an FAQ ...", and an additional false statement was posted in the suggestion box thread. I have added a message there to clarify my views and to state what I think will resolve this matter, so we can all get back to work. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration)

Typically that's how people solve problems rather than showing up on a user's talk page and insulting them or their affiliations. I didn't see your response in that FB thread itself. --Philgomes (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, you didn't see my response in that facebook thread, and highly unlikely that you will see any participation from me in the facebook group. I prefer to use on-Wikipedia discussion areas. I talked about that briefly in the thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cooperation#CREWE_suggestion_box. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 21:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also correct: I made a very poor choice of wording on this message on your talk. I've revised the message, and the title. Thanks. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 22:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Philgomes. I've added a message to your note here that you might be able to help with. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)