I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly*
promotional,
especially in a case like >Monmouth Museum.
Well the community is pretty sure about that, if you want to change that I
suggest you start with an RFC. Personally I'm not annoyed by not for
profits using promotional names and happy not to start off with a block for
them. But considering how many times an active username can get plastered
over the internet it seems obvious to me that our policy is sound in
considering them promotional.
As it is, we have PR professionals calling themselves
some fantasy name
making the same arguments, >whether they are justified or not.
I'd rather
know who they are, but YMMV.
Knowing who someone works for is not the same as knowing who they are.
It's a big fallacy to assume that by pushing things
underground, they have
ceased to exist, and that >appearances should be more
important than
realities.
That's a very different subject. The choice is not between pushing things
underground and allowing promotional usernames. People can declare a COI
without revealing who they are or putting things in their username.
Declaring COIs is a good use for userpages. Not least because userpages
can be updated as editors shift employment and their COIs change.
WSC
On 29 April 2012 18:43, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, WereSpielChequers
<
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent,
whether that is a positive or
a negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors
and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for
some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation
it is also promotional.
I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional,
especially in a case like Monmouth Museum.
If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a
bunch of spin doctors with
usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously
promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less coverage
than their charity work.
As it is, we have PR professionals calling themselves some fantasy name
making the same arguments, whether they are justified or not. I'd rather
know who they are, but YMMV.
It's a big fallacy to assume that by pushing things underground, they have
ceased to exist, and that appearances should be more important than
realities.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org