Talk:Portland Communications/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Update on recent press stories regarding lobbyists
Hello -
Though I first contributed to wikipedia some years ago, I'm a novice. I'm coming at this with a specific issue regarding Portland and their editing decisions, here:
It strikes me that the fuss needs to be reflected in the company's profile but as a participant in the fuss, I don't feel qualified to be seen to do it fairly.
There general point that I think is more important for the site. I suspect a number of PR firms have edited entries for their clients potentially breaching conflict of interest rules. I am going to write to the trade bodies to ask that they work with wikipedia to issue guidelines.
It may help understanding if company profiles on wikipedia linked to the entries in the relevant trade body entry for these lobby firms. For example, Portland are members of the APPC, a body that requires members to provide quarterly reports on their clients. Example here: http://www.appc.org.uk/en/register/current-register.cfm/portland
It might be that a piece of work is undertaken to work through big UK lobbyists and PR's to apply this information to company profiles? I don't mind helping but I'm not technically strong and do not wish to fall foul of rules and guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfromwestbrom (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, and have added the link to this article. The wider task might be a job for a bot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Proposed change
In accordance with best practice guidance here WP:SCOIC I would like to propose the following change
Current and previous clients include BTA Bank, Mukhtar Ablyazov and AB InBev
The reason for this change is that Mr Ablyazov is not and never has been a client of Portland Communications.
Users may also want to update this area of the page to include a wider range of the company's client list - which is available on its website http://www.portland-communications.com/clients Portlander11 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ablyazov removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
News
See "Lobbying company tried to wipe out 'wife beater' beer references". The Independent. Retrieved 4 January 2012.
-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Undue concern
I'm not really sure that it is right that about half of the article is about the wife beater incident. Whilst I agree that it should be included, I think it would be better to mention it in less detail along the lines of "they have edited Wikipedia articles on their clients behalf". Having such a large proportion of an article about the incident strikes me as some kind of payback - if someone was writing a book about PC would they include so much detail on a relatively minor incident? FTR I don't agree with their edits, but in my experience almost every PR agency has edited Wikipedia articles and making such a fuss about PC isn't fair, just because their edits happened to get noticed by an MP. SmartSE (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
--- I think its appropriate to have that there as it is one of the things which makes them notable as a PR company. Otherwise one might argue whether the article meets notability guidelines in itself or whether this article is itself merely PR and advertising for the organisation. I think that members and users of wikipedia should be aware of PR companies manipulating this website. If you are aware of 'almost every' PR agency editing this website then you should disclose those organisations and enable the wikipedia team to check out what their sockpuppet usernames have been doing to this website.
Thou shall do no evil, however if one does... everyone should know. 93.96.46.187 (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Sammy 10th April 2012
- Weird definition of evil. Trying not to associate yourselves with wife-beaters seems less than evil. I cleaned it up. Two paragraphs were saying virtually the same thing. A reference to another company is false-light comparison and unnecessary. It wasn't a "Wife-beater controversy" as it was editing wikipedia that stirred the pot, not any wife-beating that may or may not be going on. In any event, Portland communication was not associated with wife-beating in any way so the section title was renamed. --DHeyward (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2013 (UTC)