David Gerard wrote:
And, importantly it sets the tone for others. Note the
press tone from
Wikimedia about the WikiScanner - we don't make suggestions that
companies be burned in effigy, we just suggest ways to set the record
straight without an apparent conflict of interest. One thing company
PR people have just learnt is that "conflict of interest" is public
perception, not just words on a Wikipedia policy page.
There's considerable public good will to be gained from being seen to
play nice with Wikipedia, and - as the frankly quite boggling wave of
press coverage of the WikiScanner has just demonstrated - considerable
public oppobrium to be gained from being seen not to. We don't even
have to mention sticks, just carrots ;-)
For some, carrots are just another kind of
stick. A bigger carrot will
more effectively beat someone over the head. ;-)
The tone of what you say above is just as important at the micro-level
of how Wikipedians get along with each other. Some just move too
quickly into an enforcement mode.
This can also apply to articles about companies. A company that insists
on believing its own company PR in the face of contradictory public
information can only harm the perception that the public has of its
products. It is now much easier to find information that challenges the
companies.
Ec