While it was wonderful to hear recently that Porter Novelli had won, for the second year running, Holmes Report’s Best Consultancy to work for in EMEA, it feels ever so slightly like a bit of a burden too.

As we celebrated in the office with our obligatory drinks trolley, (complete with new healthy snacks in place of crisps)  I couldn’t help feeling it’s quite a responsibility to be acknowledged as the best place in Europe to work. How do we keep this up and how on earth are we going to try and complete the hat trick next year?

I suppose one of the advantages of being one of the smaller international networks is that it is easier to foster a sense of community across borders, and this is certainly true when we reach out to each other and ask for help. And when we ask individual offices what talent initiatives they run locally, it is astonishing how many similarities there are even though most are conceived and implemented independently.

This month, I also started my annual peer group meetings inviting all staff to tell me the best and worst about working at PN, and what was encouraging was hearing consistent feedback with the shout-outs from Holmes. Phrases like “supportive and encouraging culture” and “honest and transparent”  come up again and again. Mind you so do those PR agency perennials “very busy” and “challenging work”, so still work to do.

(Sally Ward is MD of Porter Novelli UK)

I’m looking forward to getting around the table with my fellow judges this Friday to review interviews from six candidates short-listed for the final round of Charity Voice 2012, an award scheme we’ve been running in recent months with the Media Trust.

Over the past three years, I’ve been leading the team of volunteer trainers at Porter Novelli – thanks Anna, Emily, Emma, Fiona, Geoff, Hannah, Jemma, Jennifer, Julia, Kimberley, Letticia, Lucy and Rhakee! They’ve worked with over 200 spokespeople from the voluntary sector to help improve their understanding of the media and ability to deliver stronger interviews that get their important stories heard more successfully.

It’s one of the most enjoyable and rewarding projects I work on at the agency and forms a central part of our ‘better’ commitment to use professional skills in positive ways to help organisations that might benefit. I’ve met some great people through the training and their rich stories gave us the original inspiration for the award; so it’s very rewarding to see Charity Voice help share their efforts more widely.

We’ll be looking at interviews by candidates from large and small organisations, including ASH Wales, KeyRing Living Support Networks, Muscular Dystrophy Campaign, British Association of Dermatologists, Environmental Funders Network and Action Aid International. Third sector organisations have a fantastic opportunity to get positive profile for their campaigns by effectively contributing to media stories, so it’s great to see so much talent shortlisted.

Given my first hand experience of working with them, I’m sure the final decision will be a difficult one…although I plan to be more Tom Jones than Simon Cowell in my approach towards judging. We’ll be announcing the winner next week and they’ll receive a profile interview on the Guardian Voluntary Sector Network plus a free training session for six people at their charity as a prize. More news to follow.

Wikipedia is a global phenomenon; the openly-editable encyclopedia is the sixth most popular site in the world. So it’s not surprising that, every now and again, vested interests seek to manipulate its content. Not least in the American presidential race, where, its been reported that Mitt Romney’s Wikipedia page has been edited hundreds of times since the Republican primaries began.

Wikipedia’s community guidelines are all available online and easy to find, and emphasise that entries must be written from a neutral point of view, in line with the second of its five pillars. So as a communications professional it’s always worth bearing in mind the following principles (adapted from Wikipedia’s guidelines), to avoid wasting your time creating/editing changes that are undone, or worse, cause severe embarrassment or legal consequences:

1. All of your edits should be in line with the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia
2. Wikipedia is not a battleground – you should not try to begin or engage in disputes via Wikipedia entries
3. Avoid Conflict of Interest (COI) editing. This involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to you as an editor, than advancing the aims of Wikipedia,this counts as a conflict of interest
4. This includes avoiding self-promotion: adding advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates. Examples of these types of material include:
   • Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites.
   • Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
   • Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.
   • Promotional article production on behalf of clients Editors should not create articles which serve solely to promote their subject. All Wikipedia articles should contain useful information written as if from a neutral point of view. The writing of “puff pieces” and advertisements on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited. If you contribute to Wikipedia on behalf of clients, you owe it to both them and the encyclopedia to make very sure you understand the standards for content here, and do not insert promotional material.
5. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion or advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small “garage” or local companies are typically unacceptable. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability.
6. Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.
7. If you are in a situation where you need or wish to try and adapt a Wikipedia page on behalf of an individual or institution on the grounds of accuracy, explain your case on the Wikipedia talk page that sits behind it (example shown below) – being transparent about how you would like the page to be edited and why, and including reference links.

(Adapted from a post which first appeared on Mariamz blog).