Talk:Risk Register/2012

Edit suggestion

I'm not a Wikimedia UK member. Under Risks relating to WMF

Risks related to WMF projects

ADD

Scandal related to conflict of interest, POV, BLP, "paid" editing, "PR" editing, etc. Anything which bears a risk of loss of credibility or public confidence.

Action:

Public response on Blog and Twitter, use usual press release channels too.

• Boilerplate rapid response (ideally within 20 minutes of any breaking alleged problem):

The Foundation and Wikipedia have quality-control policies and guidelines in place to prevent introduction of bias, or the appearance of bias, into Wikipedia articles. We also have policies and best practices in place to maintain the organization's and its projects' independence from outside parties. The Foundation (UK) and Wikipedia members are internally looking into this situation. The Foundation (UK) will publicly release a preliminary assessment based on internal discussion(s) within 24 hours. In addition to the situation at hand, any potential adjustments to policies and procedures will be considered, and the Foundation will publicly release an additional report within the week.

(Contact info)

(Organization info)

• Internal discussion tracking on all relevant Wiki Talk, User Talk, and Wikipedia Talk pages, including Jimmy Wales's Talk page (a common lightning rod), with boilerplate response and possible consensed move of several discussions to a single most-appropriate Talk (or subpage!).
• Check IRC:wikipedia-en-help IRC:wikipedia-en, IRC:wikipedia for discussion, suggest continuing on-wiki at most-appropriate Talk page.
• Consider RFC on topic at most-appropriate Talk page
• 24-hour response:
• 5-business-day response as promised:

Training of trustees in press release channel usage: mailing lists, blog and twitter logins

-- wikipedia:User:Lexein 15:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

All good stuff, we have a Communications Plan and Stevie could pick these suggestions up quite well as part of his ongoing communications review. I completely agree with a simple guide to responses, some of these exist for some scenarios, but this specific contingency plan is worth openly recognizing. --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lexein, thank you for taking the time to write this. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I was on holiday when this was posted and somehow it got a little lost. I've just been pointed here. I think your suggestions are sensible and I'll look at them in a bit more detail. I'll then come up with some kind of approach like this that we can use in future, although my greatest hope is that we won't actually need it. Thanks for taking an interest, and for your suggestions. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to help, hope it goes somewhere. It's so easy for anything happening on Wikipedia or at the Chapters to blow up into a media incident, that it is Best Practice to have these media rapid responses and procedures at the ready. The PR Director, or Acting PR (whoever that is) should be reachable 24/7 via phone, email-to-phone or SMS by somebody to be able to act on these emergency, or merely urgent, measures. After further thought, I'm of the opinion that several media backgrounders should be prepared in advance, with focus on different aspects of Wikipedia/Wikimedia Foundation/Editing/Editors/Reliable Sources, so that the burden of writing a rapid response is lessened under time and news cycle pressure. These backgrounders will explain in plain language, without WMF/WP jargon, essential facts for understanding issues related to the emergent incident, and can be selectively copy/pasted to provide clarity, and anticipate fundamental questions. --Lexein (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)