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

[Charles Matthews]

On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
>
>> Sorry, this is exactly the point. The conversation where we explain very
>> patiently to someone what our definition of COI is and is not; and the
>> response is "you're telling me that if I sail close to the wind on NPOV
>> but
>> don't quite go over the line, then whatever my potential conflict of
>> interest is, then I'm not breaking your rules". That conversation is
>> exactly why the whole business is arcane _to people who think they are
>> paid
>> to sail close to the wind and get away with it_. E.g. people with good
>> legal advisers who are smart enough to listen to the advice and understand
>> the fine print.
>>
>
> If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather than
> to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting too
> close to a line.
>
> If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the
> speed
> limit, that no longer has anything to do with "getting close to a line".
> He's just making up his own rules.
>
> Or he may have noticed that you are off your face or otherwise not fit to
drive, and is applying common sense. Good metaphor.

But you do seem hung up on "rules". Without the required understanding that
there are indeed sub-sub-clauses, such as the requirement to "edit for the
enemy" that is written into WP:NPOV, that are implicit in WP:COI, and
without the idea that WP is a purposeful activity and has aims that should
be appreciated (which is there in black-and-white in WP:COI), there is no
way some people can do what we want.

Continuation of conversation:

"Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that
to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you
guys are just a bit crazed."

"Right both times."

"And you're now telling me I have to flack for the opponents of the guy I
am paid by, and put their criticisms into due form in the the way that,
frankly, they are too dumb to do, using the skills I have but against the
brief I have been given."

"Yup, that's what it says on the page about neutrality."

"Well ... where I come from ... words fail me ..."

This is really not the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Charles