Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Saturday July 06, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchDirectory:Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (view source)
Revision as of 13:04, 14 March 2012
, 13:04, 14 March 2012Content copied from Wikipedia, under CC-by-whatever licensing terms, attribution found here: http://tinyurl.com/crewe-attribution
'''Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement (CREWE)''' is a [[Facebook]] group<ref name=corpcomm>{{cite web |url=http://www.corpcommsmagazine.co.uk/features/2212-time-for-wiki-editing |title=Time for Wiki Editing |work=CorpComms: The Magazine for the Corporate Communicator |publisher=Hardy Media |location=London, UK |first=Clare |last=Harrison |date=2012-02-24 |accessdate=2012-03-01}}</ref> created by members of the [[public relations]] industry with the aim of improving the relationship between their industry and [[Wikipedia]]. They lobby for greater involvement by PR professionals on the site, with the stated goal of maintaining accurate articles about corporations. Some Wikipedia editors <ref>{{cite news |title=Wiki wars |author=Kaya Strehler |url=http://www.creammagazine.com/2012/02/the-wikiwar-is-on/ |newspaper=Cream Magazine |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> including Wikipedia co-founder [[Jimmy Wales]]<ref name="Lovell"/>, have also joined the group to discuss these issues.<ref name=TechRepublic/> CREWE was started by Phil Gomes,<ref name="Forbes">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia & the PR Pro: Friend or Foe? |author=Peter Himler |url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhimler/2012/01/10/wikipedia-the-pr-pro-friend-or-foe/ |newspaper=[[Forbes]] |date=January 10, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> senior vice-president<ref name="PRweek">{{cite news |title=Wikipedia: Friend or foe? |author=Kate Magee |url=http://www.prweek.com/uk/features/login/1114954/ |newspaper=[[PRWeek]] |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> at [[Edelman (firm)|Edelman Digital]], in January, 2012 after John Cass of NewLogic Inc.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.newlogicusa.com/news/ |title=News | Newlogic, Inc |publisher=Newlogicusa.com |date= |accessdate=2012-02-17}}</ref> recommended the idea to him.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.forimmediaterelease.biz/index.php?/weblog/comments/fir_interview_stuart_bruce_and_phil_gomes_on_pr_and_wikipedia/ |title=FIR Interview: Stuart Bruce and Phil Gomes on PR and Wikipedia |author=Neville Hobson and Shel Holtz |publisher=ForImmediateRelease.biz |date=January 13, 2012 |accessdate=2012-03-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Wikiwars? PR pros seek editing rights from Wikipedia |author=Jeremy Woolf |url=http://www.campaignasia.com/Article/288532,opinion-wikiwars-pr-pros-seek-editing-rights-from-wikipedia.aspx |newspaper=Campaign Asia-Pacific |date=January 30, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}{{subscription needed}}</ref><ref name="techdirt">{{cite news |title=Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia |author=Gerald F. Corbett |url=http://www.techdirt.com/blog.php?d=2&m=2&y=2012 |newspaper=[[Techdirt]] |date=February 2, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref>
==Justification==
In a January 4th open letter to Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]], Phil Gomes of Edelman posted on his blog,<ref name="gomesblog">{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> "A truly serious conversation needs to happen about how communications professionals and the Wikipedia community can/must work together. Since recent events have thrown this issue into sharp relief, I’d like us to have an open, constructive and fair discussion about the important issues where public relations and Wikipedia intersect.”<ref name=Forbes/>
Gomes argued that Wikipedia's prominence as a top search result adds a level of responsibility to be accurate.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He said that many articles have inaccuracies or are outdated, and existing channels for addressing these issues--such as leaving a message on the article's "Talk" page--do not receive timely responses.<ref name=techdirtpr/> Gomes further argued that allowing PR representatives to fix minor errors, such as spelling, grammar and facts, leaves too much ambiguity about what are acceptable changes to make.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He made the comparison between PR editors and activists, challenging that activists seem to enjoy "much more latitude".<ref name=techdirtpr/> Finally, Gomes argued that in certain situations direct editing of articles was called for:
<blockquote>"When an entry is derelict (duration and definition TBD), a communications representative should be granted greater leeway in editing the entry. The entry can have a notification at the top indicating the derelict status, or even that a communications representative has had a hand in updating it. This will allow visitors to make their own judgments on how to evaluate the entry or even prioritize it in terms of how and when it gets evaluated and/or revised by a neutral party. The choice is between the certainty of an inaccurate entry or the possibility that the entry would not meet NPOV guidelines. Negative attention to bad behavior (or even to mediocre efforts) would mitigate the impact of the latter."<ref name=techdirtpr/></blockquote>
==Organization==
As of March 1, 2012, CREWE has 235 members,<ref name="facebook">{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ |title=CREWE Facebook Group |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-03-12}}</ref> including [[J. R. O'Dwyer Company|Jack O’Dwyer]], Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson, Marcia W. DiStaso,<ref name="institute">{{cite news |title=Should Public Relations Professionals be Allowed to Edit Wikipedia Articles? |author=Marcia W. DiStaso |url=http://www.instituteforpr.org/2012/02/should-public-relations-professionals-be-allowed-to-edit-wikipedia-articles/ |newspaper=Institute for Public Relations |date=February 13, 2012 |accessdate=February 17, 2012}}</ref> and industry trade association the [[Public Relations Society of America|Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)]].<ref name=Forbes/> The group was created as a source for discussion so that the disparate groups "can have a constructive relationship in the public interest of maintaining entries that are accurate" on Wikipedia.<ref name="management">{{cite news |title=CREWE group hopes to unblock Wiki impasse |author=[[Staff writer]] |url=http://www.management.co.nz/executiveupdate.asp?eID=320&utm_campaign=MGTE&utm_medium=email&utm_source=37 |newspaper=New Zealand Management |date=February 3, 2012 |accessdate=February 18, 2012}}</ref>
According to Gerard F. Corbett, CEO of PRSA, CREWE is based on four principles:<ref name=techdirt/>
*Corporate communicators want to do the right thing.
*Communicators engaged in ethical practice have a lot to contribute.
*Current Wikipedia policy does not fully understand Nos. 1 and 2, owing to the activities of some bad actors and a general misunderstanding of public relations in general.
*Accurate Wikipedia entries are in the public interest.
CREWE maintains a group on [[Facebook]]<ref name=facebook/> including a page where people can report issues they have with Wikipedia.<ref name="TechRepublic">{{cite news |title=Four Social Media IT rules to live by |author=Gina Smith |url=http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/tech-manager/four-social-media-it-rules-to-live-by/7275 |newspaper=[[TechRepublic]] |date=February 7, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> It also details Wikipedia's [[conflict of interest]] guidelines, best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, and controversial issues.<ref name=TechRepublic/> One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on [[Fortune 100]] companies.<ref name="Odwyer">{{cite news |title=Tortuous Wikipedia Rules Require Expert |author=Jack O'Dwyer |url=http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3911-Tortuous-Wikipedia-Rules-Require-Expert.html |newspaper=[[O'Dwyer's]] |date=January 25, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/doc/165384016900187/ |title=CREWE PR Plan|publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles.<ref name="Lovell">{{cite web|url=http://lovell.com/public-relations/pr-pros-push-wikipedia-editing-rights/ |title=PR Pros Push For Wikipedia Editing Rights|publisher=Lovell Communications |date=January 19, 2012|author=Erin Lawley |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref>
Among the organization's goals are to get Jimmy Wales to change his opinion about paid editors directly editing articles (he argues it shouldn't happen)<ref name=institute/> as well as making Wikipedia a more welcoming place for PR workers.<ref name="socialfresh">{{cite web|url=http://socialfresh.com/jimmy-wales-and-public-relations-face-off/ |title=Jimmy Wales and Public Relations Face Off |author=David King |publisher=Socialfresh.com |date=January 16, 2012|accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> As of March 8, 2012, Wikipedia's [[conflict of interest]] guideline "strongly discourages" direct editing of articles, but encourages use of article discussion pages, by editors with a conflict of interest.<ref>{{oldid|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|480820037|Previous revision of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest}}</ref>
CREWE is conducting a survey looking at how Wikipedia is viewed by Public Relations professionals.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://womma.org/word/2012/02/27/wikipedia’s-credibility/|title=Wikipedia’s Credibility|author=Pat McCarthy|date=February 27, 2012|retrieved=March 12, 2012}}</ref>
==Reception==
After the group started, conversation on [[Twitter]] and elsewhere ensued between group members and Wales.<ref name=Forbes/><ref name=socialfresh/>
PRSA's chair and [[CEO]] Gerry Corbett said about paid editing and CREWE:
<blockquote>The effort by Phil Gomes and the group he has started on Facebook, is a critical advocacy activity that the Public Relations Society of America wholeheartedly supports...[Assisting the effort], we believe, will augment a timely campaign that will benefit the entire public relations and corporate communications industry, while helping to establish better relationships with the Wikipedia community, which clearly has an influential role in modern research for people of all professions....It is an initiative we hope will be taken up by many and used as a catalyst for an open and honest discussion with Wikipedia and its editors regarding the role and value of allowing corporate communications and PR professionals to responsibly and transparently make necessary edits to their employers’ and clients’ Wikipedia entries.<ref name=Forbes/></blockquote>
In a response on Gomes' blog, Wales maintained PR representatives should cooperate with the community and abide by its policies, but still not edit articles directly.<ref name="techdirtpr">{{cite web|url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/02160317359/should-pr-people-be-able-to-edit-otherwise-ignored-wikipedia-pages-their-clients-to-correct-errors.shtml |title=Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored Wikipedia Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors? |publisher=[[Techdirt]] |date=2012-01-10 |accessdate=2012-02-11}}</ref> Wales wrote:
<blockquote>...no one in the PR industry has ever put forward a cogent argument (and seldom bother putting forward an argument at all) why it is important that they take the potentially (especially if I have anything to do with it) reputation damaging step of directly editing entries where they are acting as paid advocates. The simple and obvious answer is to do what works, without risking the reputation of the client: talk to the community, respect their autonomy, and never ever directly edit an article. There are many avenues for you to make simple factual corrections, and these avenues actually do work...What I have found - and the evidence for this is pretty comprehensive - is that people who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html?cid=6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c#comment-6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref></blockquote>
[[Forbes]] contributor and PR/media strategist Peter Himler wrote of CREWE, "Let’s keep an eye on this, especially since Mr. Wales appears to have listened and may be poised to make some concessions to the PR industry."<ref name=Forbes/> PR professional Neville Hobson was less optimistic, saying, "From talking to Jimmy Wales [on Twitter] it's clear that he is pretty rigid on his issue of what Wikipedia can do.<ref name=corpcomm/> David King, a marketing professional, suggested that paid editors need to earn the respect of the Wikipedia community and educate themselves about its rules before they push for broader editing privileges.<ref name="PRSquared">By David King, PR-Squared. "[http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2012/02/wikipedia-for-marketers-the-last-word Wikipedia for Marketers: The Last Word]." February 13, 2012. Retrieved February 18, 2012.</ref><ref name="socialfresh"/>
Around the same time CREWE was created, a separate on-Wikipedia group called ''WikiProject Cooperation''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation |title=Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] |date= |accessdate=2012-02-12}}</ref> was started to provide education, oversight, and assistance, and collaboration to paid editors.<ref name=socialfresh/>
==See also==
* [[Motivations of Wikipedia contributors]]
* [[Reliability of Wikipedia]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
==External links==
* [http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ CREWE Facebook group]
[[Category:Facebook groups]]
[[Category:Advocacy groups]]
[[Category:Public relations]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
==Justification==
In a January 4th open letter to Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]], Phil Gomes of Edelman posted on his blog,<ref name="gomesblog">{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> "A truly serious conversation needs to happen about how communications professionals and the Wikipedia community can/must work together. Since recent events have thrown this issue into sharp relief, I’d like us to have an open, constructive and fair discussion about the important issues where public relations and Wikipedia intersect.”<ref name=Forbes/>
Gomes argued that Wikipedia's prominence as a top search result adds a level of responsibility to be accurate.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He said that many articles have inaccuracies or are outdated, and existing channels for addressing these issues--such as leaving a message on the article's "Talk" page--do not receive timely responses.<ref name=techdirtpr/> Gomes further argued that allowing PR representatives to fix minor errors, such as spelling, grammar and facts, leaves too much ambiguity about what are acceptable changes to make.<ref name=techdirtpr/> He made the comparison between PR editors and activists, challenging that activists seem to enjoy "much more latitude".<ref name=techdirtpr/> Finally, Gomes argued that in certain situations direct editing of articles was called for:
<blockquote>"When an entry is derelict (duration and definition TBD), a communications representative should be granted greater leeway in editing the entry. The entry can have a notification at the top indicating the derelict status, or even that a communications representative has had a hand in updating it. This will allow visitors to make their own judgments on how to evaluate the entry or even prioritize it in terms of how and when it gets evaluated and/or revised by a neutral party. The choice is between the certainty of an inaccurate entry or the possibility that the entry would not meet NPOV guidelines. Negative attention to bad behavior (or even to mediocre efforts) would mitigate the impact of the latter."<ref name=techdirtpr/></blockquote>
==Organization==
As of March 1, 2012, CREWE has 235 members,<ref name="facebook">{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ |title=CREWE Facebook Group |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-03-12}}</ref> including [[J. R. O'Dwyer Company|Jack O’Dwyer]], Shel Holtz, Neville Hobson, Marcia W. DiStaso,<ref name="institute">{{cite news |title=Should Public Relations Professionals be Allowed to Edit Wikipedia Articles? |author=Marcia W. DiStaso |url=http://www.instituteforpr.org/2012/02/should-public-relations-professionals-be-allowed-to-edit-wikipedia-articles/ |newspaper=Institute for Public Relations |date=February 13, 2012 |accessdate=February 17, 2012}}</ref> and industry trade association the [[Public Relations Society of America|Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)]].<ref name=Forbes/> The group was created as a source for discussion so that the disparate groups "can have a constructive relationship in the public interest of maintaining entries that are accurate" on Wikipedia.<ref name="management">{{cite news |title=CREWE group hopes to unblock Wiki impasse |author=[[Staff writer]] |url=http://www.management.co.nz/executiveupdate.asp?eID=320&utm_campaign=MGTE&utm_medium=email&utm_source=37 |newspaper=New Zealand Management |date=February 3, 2012 |accessdate=February 18, 2012}}</ref>
According to Gerard F. Corbett, CEO of PRSA, CREWE is based on four principles:<ref name=techdirt/>
*Corporate communicators want to do the right thing.
*Communicators engaged in ethical practice have a lot to contribute.
*Current Wikipedia policy does not fully understand Nos. 1 and 2, owing to the activities of some bad actors and a general misunderstanding of public relations in general.
*Accurate Wikipedia entries are in the public interest.
CREWE maintains a group on [[Facebook]]<ref name=facebook/> including a page where people can report issues they have with Wikipedia.<ref name="TechRepublic">{{cite news |title=Four Social Media IT rules to live by |author=Gina Smith |url=http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/tech-manager/four-social-media-it-rules-to-live-by/7275 |newspaper=[[TechRepublic]] |date=February 7, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> It also details Wikipedia's [[conflict of interest]] guidelines, best practices for editors with conflicts of interest, and controversial issues.<ref name=TechRepublic/> One proposal of the CREWE participants is for a list of mistakes in the Wikipedia articles on [[Fortune 100]] companies.<ref name="Odwyer">{{cite news |title=Tortuous Wikipedia Rules Require Expert |author=Jack O'Dwyer |url=http://www.odwyerpr.com/blog/index.php?/archives/3911-Tortuous-Wikipedia-Rules-Require-Expert.html |newspaper=[[O'Dwyer's]] |date=January 25, 2012 |accessdate=February 10, 2012}}</ref> Another page documents the CREWE PR Plan<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/doc/165384016900187/ |title=CREWE PR Plan|publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> and a proposal for a pilot project that would allow PR representatives to edit Wikipedia articles.<ref name="Lovell">{{cite web|url=http://lovell.com/public-relations/pr-pros-push-wikipedia-editing-rights/ |title=PR Pros Push For Wikipedia Editing Rights|publisher=Lovell Communications |date=January 19, 2012|author=Erin Lawley |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref>
Among the organization's goals are to get Jimmy Wales to change his opinion about paid editors directly editing articles (he argues it shouldn't happen)<ref name=institute/> as well as making Wikipedia a more welcoming place for PR workers.<ref name="socialfresh">{{cite web|url=http://socialfresh.com/jimmy-wales-and-public-relations-face-off/ |title=Jimmy Wales and Public Relations Face Off |author=David King |publisher=Socialfresh.com |date=January 16, 2012|accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref> As of March 8, 2012, Wikipedia's [[conflict of interest]] guideline "strongly discourages" direct editing of articles, but encourages use of article discussion pages, by editors with a conflict of interest.<ref>{{oldid|Wikipedia:Conflict of interest|480820037|Previous revision of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest}}</ref>
CREWE is conducting a survey looking at how Wikipedia is viewed by Public Relations professionals.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://womma.org/word/2012/02/27/wikipedia’s-credibility/|title=Wikipedia’s Credibility|author=Pat McCarthy|date=February 27, 2012|retrieved=March 12, 2012}}</ref>
==Reception==
After the group started, conversation on [[Twitter]] and elsewhere ensued between group members and Wales.<ref name=Forbes/><ref name=socialfresh/>
PRSA's chair and [[CEO]] Gerry Corbett said about paid editing and CREWE:
<blockquote>The effort by Phil Gomes and the group he has started on Facebook, is a critical advocacy activity that the Public Relations Society of America wholeheartedly supports...[Assisting the effort], we believe, will augment a timely campaign that will benefit the entire public relations and corporate communications industry, while helping to establish better relationships with the Wikipedia community, which clearly has an influential role in modern research for people of all professions....It is an initiative we hope will be taken up by many and used as a catalyst for an open and honest discussion with Wikipedia and its editors regarding the role and value of allowing corporate communications and PR professionals to responsibly and transparently make necessary edits to their employers’ and clients’ Wikipedia entries.<ref name=Forbes/></blockquote>
In a response on Gomes' blog, Wales maintained PR representatives should cooperate with the community and abide by its policies, but still not edit articles directly.<ref name="techdirtpr">{{cite web|url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/02160317359/should-pr-people-be-able-to-edit-otherwise-ignored-wikipedia-pages-their-clients-to-correct-errors.shtml |title=Should PR People Be Able To Edit Otherwise Ignored Wikipedia Pages Of Their Clients To Correct Errors? |publisher=[[Techdirt]] |date=2012-01-10 |accessdate=2012-02-11}}</ref> Wales wrote:
<blockquote>...no one in the PR industry has ever put forward a cogent argument (and seldom bother putting forward an argument at all) why it is important that they take the potentially (especially if I have anything to do with it) reputation damaging step of directly editing entries where they are acting as paid advocates. The simple and obvious answer is to do what works, without risking the reputation of the client: talk to the community, respect their autonomy, and never ever directly edit an article. There are many avenues for you to make simple factual corrections, and these avenues actually do work...What I have found - and the evidence for this is pretty comprehensive - is that people who are acting as paid advocates do not make good editors. They insert puffery and spin. That's what they do because that it is what paid advocates do.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.philgomes.com/2012/01/open-letter-to-jimmy-wales-and-wikipedia.html?cid=6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c#comment-6a00d8341d764753ef0168e53ff85c970c |title=An Open Letter to Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia - Where the Fishermen Ain't - Phil Gomes' Thoughts on PR, Social Media, and Online Communities |publisher=Blog.philgomes.com |date=2012-01-04 |accessdate=2012-02-10}}</ref></blockquote>
[[Forbes]] contributor and PR/media strategist Peter Himler wrote of CREWE, "Let’s keep an eye on this, especially since Mr. Wales appears to have listened and may be poised to make some concessions to the PR industry."<ref name=Forbes/> PR professional Neville Hobson was less optimistic, saying, "From talking to Jimmy Wales [on Twitter] it's clear that he is pretty rigid on his issue of what Wikipedia can do.<ref name=corpcomm/> David King, a marketing professional, suggested that paid editors need to earn the respect of the Wikipedia community and educate themselves about its rules before they push for broader editing privileges.<ref name="PRSquared">By David King, PR-Squared. "[http://www.pr-squared.com/index.php/2012/02/wikipedia-for-marketers-the-last-word Wikipedia for Marketers: The Last Word]." February 13, 2012. Retrieved February 18, 2012.</ref><ref name="socialfresh"/>
Around the same time CREWE was created, a separate on-Wikipedia group called ''WikiProject Cooperation''<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cooperation |title=Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |publisher=[[Wikimedia Foundation]] |date= |accessdate=2012-02-12}}</ref> was started to provide education, oversight, and assistance, and collaboration to paid editors.<ref name=socialfresh/>
==See also==
* [[Motivations of Wikipedia contributors]]
* [[Reliability of Wikipedia]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
==External links==
* [http://www.facebook.com/groups/crewe.group/ CREWE Facebook group]
[[Category:Facebook groups]]
[[Category:Advocacy groups]]
[[Category:Public relations]]
[[Category:Wikipedia]]
