If it hasn't been suggested already and this is not simply PR'n on an easy target with the "very very strongly", subscribing this list to the PRwatch weekly spin summary would help to remind admins about what to look out for on a regular basis. That would actually seem like very, very strong emphasis on the importance of this: http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/weekly-spin
The entire month up until now: http://www.prwatch.org/spin
Jimmy Wales jwales@wikia.com wrote: I think we need to be very clear in a lot of different places that PR firms editing Wikipedia is something that we frown upon very very strongly. The appearance of impropriety is so great that we should make it very very strongly clear to these firms that we do not approve of what they would like to do.
It is all well and good to say, well, it is ok so long as they remain neutral, but if they really want to write neutral articles, they can do so, on their own websites, and release the work under the FDL, and notify Wikipedians who are totally independent.
Additionally, it is always appropriate to interact on the talk pages of articles. If a PR firm is not happy about how something is presented about their client, they can identify themselves openly on the talk page, and present well-reasoned arguments and additional information and links.
Of course it is always going to be the case that unethical practitioners may get involved in inappropriate behavior, but I think this is no argument for simply accepting it. Rather, it is a strong argument for asking people to do this the right way: transparently and allowing independent editors to make the actual editing decisions.
--Jimbo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com