More about PR firms

[Steve Bennett-8]

On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...> wrote:
> PR firms can't effectively completely change their identity twice a
> week... doing so would substantially obstruct their ability to obtain
> and maintain customer relationships.

This is an interesting point. If we can get to a point where PR firms
edit under a disclosed name (by making transparent editing beneficial
to them), then they have an incentive in not doing anything stupid
here: protecting their reputation. No PR company would want a story
"PR company blatantly inserts bias at Wikipedia" written about them.
That's just bad PR after all.

I'm still keen to hear what this "appearance of impropiety" thing is
that we're so keen to avoid.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Sydney Poore aka FloNight]

---- Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...> wrote:

Lets look at the possibilities:

-In a world we where tell PR Firms not to edit:
* PR firm follows the rules, doesn't edit.
**Pool of editing people decreased
**Harm of biased insertions avoided
or
* PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
**We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
**We fail to detect it: harm remains.

=====================================================
Hello Greg,

Overall agree with your post with the exception of PR firms staying in business to keep their clients. I think this type of business is perfect for con artists that open and close businesses at a rapid pace in different US states or around the world.

They bill the customers and then move on to a new company name, leaving businesses angry at us for not putting their article on Wikipedia.

I think this type of illegal activity is a real possibility and is another reason that we should ban PR firms from our site. With this policy we will not be caught up in the illegal activity.

Take care,
Sydney aka FloNight
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

On 22/08/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5@...> wrote:

> They bill the customers and then move on to a new company name, leaving businesses angry at us for not putting their article on Wikipedia.
> I think this type of illegal activity is a real possibility and is another reason that we should ban PR firms from our site. With this policy we will not be caught up in the illegal activity.


I wouldn't think we'd be held liable for someone else acting
unethically in such a manner. And Wikipedia has always tended to wait
until there's an actual problem before locking things down.

(On the other current topic, anon article creation vs
Seigenthaler-style incidents, I think WP:LIVING, more active quality
patrolling and particularly the hard work of the Living Biographies
Project has done much more to deal with such problems.)


- d.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Kelly Martin-3]

On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...> wrote:

> -In a world we where tell PR Firms not to edit:
> * PR firm follows the rules, doesn't edit.
> **Pool of editing people decreased
> **Harm of biased insertions avoided
> or
> * PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
> **We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
> **We fail to detect it: harm remains.
>
> -In a world where we invite PR firms to edit after jumping through hoops:
> *PR firm follows the rules, edits (with boiler plates and notices)
> **Editing community size increased by the addition of editors driven
> by monetary interests in certain POVs.
> **Rightfully distrustful users overscrutnize every word, things we
> would normally accept are rejected
> **Worst of the bias removed, their ability to use Wikipedia for PR
> mostly suppressed.
> **Still some bias and POV leak through, but now through a blessed channel
> **Patient and well funded PR firms are able to wikilawyer to game the
> system, because we have no blanket prohibition.
> * PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
> **Feel justified because we've permitted them to edit, but not allowed
> them to actually accomplish their goal.
> **We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
> **We fail to detect it: harm remains.

What I got out of this analysis, which I don't see any basis to
contest, is that by allowing PR firms to edit through some sort of
approval process, we get all the costs of a bureacracy to manage
approved PR firms, without in any way eliminating the cost of
monitoring for PR firms (and others!) who attempt to push biased
content clandestinely.

>From a cost-benefit standpoint, I see insufficient value in
encouraging PR firms to edit through an approval process; it increases
our costs and gains us rather little.  We'll still have to hunt down
and deal with the defecting PR firms and other bias pushers, and
frankly I doubt that the gain from the cooperating PR firms will be
significant.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Steve Bennett-8]

On 8/22/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5@...> wrote:
> I think this type of illegal activity is a real possibility and is another reason that we should ban PR firms from our site.

Just remember that we can't "ban PR firms". Can't be done. Not possible.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jimmy Wales]

Steve Bennett wrote:
> On 8/22/06, Sydney aka FloNight <poore5@...> wrote:
>> I think this type of illegal activity is a real possibility and is another reason that we should ban PR firms from our site.
>
> Just remember that we can't "ban PR firms". Can't be done. Not possible.

Well, no more than we can "ban vandals" and the like.

I think that the vast majority of PR firms are ethical and respect our
advice to interact with the community on the talk pages rather than edit
directly.  And the ones who aren't... well, we will deal with them as
best we can, as we do with other bad-faith editors.

--Jimbo

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l