On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 12 November 2012 15:26, Thomas Morton
<morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
You misunderstand.
As I mentioned: we simply have no moral high ground to criticise their
actions. Our controls are shoddy and we defame people all over the place.
They massage biographies etc. to cast things in a better light.
Who is the good guy?
On the grounds that two hypothetical wrongs don't make a hypothetical
right, there need not be an answer to your question.
I thought Tom's question "Who is the good guy" was entirely rhetorical, and
precisely intended to make the point that there *wasn't* a good guy.
On the grounds
that someone who claims to be able to fix your house
or car and then
charges yo u money despite being incompetent is traditionally called a
"cowboy", the idea that WP's procedures _in cases that are not
removing defamation_ can be called "cumbersome" by PR pros rebounds on
them.
It occurs to me that biographies can be malicious without being defamatory.
It would be wise to check what exactly went on in the biography before
passing judgment.
Andreas
The right answer is in terms of the hourly rate PR
pros can ask for.
If they need to be trained to operate properly on WP, that is what
should happen. The bar for people's reputations should be set at least
as high as for plumbing.
Note, in other words, that the "defence" of the PR editing here is
entirely deflection.