[WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

[Charles Matthews]

On 18 April 2012 14:44, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Positive bias and advertorials *can* be odious, but activist editing with a
> negative bent has traditionally been the greater problem in Wikipedia, in
> my view, and is the type of bias the Wikipedia system has traditionally
> favoured. Not doing harm is, in my view, more important than preventing the
> opposite.
>
> This was pretty much the line being pushed by Jossi Fresco and TerryO when
the COI guideline was being put together at the end of 2006. And it still
has its advocates, of course. Who are more convincing when they don't have
an obvious COI (some do and some don't, I should hasten to add).

I actually think our content is better than it was then; but the world in
general cares much, much more. I don't think what I know about paid editing
of biographies with the positive slant supports the idea that we should
simply "lift restrictions" (whatever that means). My feeling is that the
debate with the PR industry, which is hugely resourced, has not yet got
into an intelligent footing at all. I think they send untrained folk to
edit here, roughly speaking.

And we know how those seeing WP as a potential market operate with
thin-end-of-the-wedge tactics. (Which is another useful insight into
Jimbo's line.)

Charles