On 14/08/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
In the case of ideological or profit-motivated disruption - the two kinds that are hardest to persuade someone to stop - sitebans don't need to happen if the editor is wise enough to change strategies. In less time than it takes to engage in a lengthy edit war, a person could publish several articles in a reliable small venue or get some press releases planted in the mainstream media. Then, quite legitimately, the editor could propose those pieces as reference sources. This is the most obvious of a variety of policy-friendly methods for achieving the goals that otherwise result in banning. A successful editor is one whose edits become durable and whose talk posts persuade the community.
One of the things that pleases me most about the (frankly boggling) level of press coverage of the WikiScanner is that it shows that "conflict of interest" is not just a public relations phrase and not just Wikipedia jargon - but something the public (a) take seriously (b) get really pissed off about in a real way ... even edits that I, on considering the matter, would not call "malicious" but misguided at worst. (And possibly something one's boss will wish to have a little word with one about.) And so people are asking about what they and their companies can do not to fall afoul of this. And this is good.
Even the SEOs are starting to listen to the wisdom of Durova ... the ones who can take in any information whatsoever, in any case.
- d.