Talk:Reputation management/Archives/2012
 | 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. |
Organizational improvements
We should make the article more intuitive. I suggest having the first few paragraphs explaining what reputation management is (the first two paragraphs of article as it is now), then break the article into a more active approach to explaining the "management" side of reputation management. This would mean including a section listing the sources of a reputation (real-world communities, online communities, search engines, periodical articles, online reviews, politics, etc), then a section explaining how these sources affect a reputation (the affects of good, bad, or indifferent opinions and news), and finally, a section detailing some of the ways that people manage their reputations (PR stunts, politics, online tools, etc). Cause, affect, solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Syrinek (talk • contribs) 14:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
needs to be re-written to include and relate to PR and SEO as entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpaisley (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to write a new section about RM as a Profession, plus edit the current material to make it more clear and make some minor edits in general. I'm working on this now. AshleyWW (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Reputation Management in Wikipedia
This excerpt from the article seems very interesting - I would love to see some references, or at least an explanation of the systems in use:
The [Wikipedia] community has responded by developing, ad hoc, reputation management techniques borrowed from other, existing systems. Jdfoote (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
External links
Wow, too many links. I came here chasing a specific piece of wp:linkspam but it looks like our entire list here violates WP:EL in one way or another. Some are spam, some are impertinent, and most of the rest are an indiscriminate collection of further reading or material that could be in the article (and thus should be integrated in if at all as references when the article is expanded). No objection to restoring a few of these in a sensible fashion but we can't have this many assorted links. Enjoy! - Wikidemo (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Washington Post article on Google and reputation management
- Tips from an Online Reputation Manager Article on Business and Blogging
- Shirky:A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy
- TechCrunch article on Facebook polls
- Slashdot-Wikipedia Reaches Half a Million Articles
- ...it may be the case that we have to figure out how to make the Wikipedia good, because that’s all there’s going to be.
- A Primer on Reputation Management
- Jimbo Wales at Stanford, February 2005
- Metawiki:Article validation
- ...to scale further a reputation system may be required for this network...
- Club theory and its applications to Wikimedia reputations
- (First Monday) Manifesto for the Reputation Society 9 Nov 2007.
- Online Reputation Management white paper 14 Dec 2007
- 10 Rules to Recover from an Online Brand Attack by Rob Stokes
Reads Like An Ad, NOT an Encyclopedia Article
C'mon people, this isn't the place to subtly pitch your products or services. The underlying tone of this article is very un-encyclopedia-like (i.e. not neutral and too informal). The whole thing needs a major rewrite. There is some excellent information here, but it's packaged a bit slick and "chatty" like an ad. Here are some examples:
"there is a perceive notion around the world that products from Taiwan are sub-standard, we know that is totally untrue but that"
"a matrix was developed to that effect in-house in our organization, R.I.P.E matrix as its called stand"
"Unfortunately not a single company or government can be put in this category in the country right now"
"Bad – organization that belong to this section are numerous in number this is primarily because they continuously break people trust in them and they e.g. the insurance industry"
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.192.220 (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've reviewed the edit history of this article; it appears that all those statements were added by an anonymous user in two consecutive edits - I think a fair amount of that material can be excised. Mindmatrix 12:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I came to the talk page to report those as possible copyright violations. But I cant find a source that they came from; most copies appear to be copies of Wikipedia. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, at the bottom of that diff is "Reputation- Discourse, Engagement and Action Osu Akande", and the same IP later changes it to "Osu Akande 2008-08-08 Reputation- Discourse, Engagement and Action". The person may be this London blogger, and the text comes from here, one of his other blogs. IP 86.163.39.52 is from the Great Britian, so it is possible that he intended to donate the text to Wikipedia. I have left the blogger a query about this; if they dont respond soon, we will need to remove it. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There's a stub at online reputation management linked from here and nowhere else. The Washington Post article[1] for online reputation management is used in this article and that one. It might make sense to move search-engine-related reputation management information to online reputation management, or merge that little stub here, or expand that stub. Thoughts? --Busy Stubber (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree on merging. The ORM article needs improvement but deals with the business practice of ORM, a topic many people are searching for and are interested in. The RM article is far too obtuse to cover ORM and is apparently aimed at academic discussion. JonathanGilliam (talk) 02:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Disagree on merging. ORM and SERM should be merged together in an independent article and reorganized. Cool Geek 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshleyWW (talk • contribs)
ORM... Online Reputation Management
Aspects.. Social, (local/mobile and WWW), Search, and also Digital PR aspects.
User:djpaisley ping —Preceding undated comment added 13:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC).
- Agree to merge: The article concerning online reputation management can be greatly shrunk and incorporated into the main article. There is a great deal of padding in the former article and it can be presented in a few crisp sentences, devoid of industry-promoting tone. --174.16.38.237 (talk) 04:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the merge as well. Little specific contents there. Pcap ping 15:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with the merge. It would be better merged with online reputation management. (AshleyWW talk) 13:22, 26 January 2012
- I would suggest merging Online reputation management and Search engine image protection into this article on reputation management. The reason being Reputation Management is the broader term, a large portion of which happens to be done online. User:Corporate Minion 16:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree - Reputation management includes all of the concepts of online and offline. We need to understand that online reputation management, PR, Search engine reputation management all are the sub-part of the phenomenon 'reputation management'. We need to separate the concept Online and Offline. Its my appeal that we remove the re-direct and allow online reputation as a separate article.Mananshah15 (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree - The point that has been raised by User talk:Mananshah15 seems to be justified. Reputation management if done offline is simple the basis of what PR agenices call "Crisis Management". Online Reputation management goes way beyond the scope and means of this and needs more focus. MuzzammilB (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)