On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
-In a world we where tell PR Firms not to edit:
- PR firm follows the rules, doesn't edit.
**Pool of editing people decreased **Harm of biased insertions avoided or
- PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
**We detect it: Harm is mitigated. **We fail to detect it: harm remains.
-In a world where we invite PR firms to edit after jumping through hoops: *PR firm follows the rules, edits (with boiler plates and notices) **Editing community size increased by the addition of editors driven by monetary interests in certain POVs. **Rightfully distrustful users overscrutnize every word, things we would normally accept are rejected **Worst of the bias removed, their ability to use Wikipedia for PR mostly suppressed. **Still some bias and POV leak through, but now through a blessed channel **Patient and well funded PR firms are able to wikilawyer to game the system, because we have no blanket prohibition.
- PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
**Feel justified because we've permitted them to edit, but not allowed them to actually accomplish their goal. **We detect it: Harm is mitigated. **We fail to detect it: harm remains.
What I got out of this analysis, which I don't see any basis to contest, is that by allowing PR firms to edit through some sort of approval process, we get all the costs of a bureacracy to manage approved PR firms, without in any way eliminating the cost of monitoring for PR firms (and others!) who attempt to push biased content clandestinely.
From a cost-benefit standpoint, I see insufficient value in
encouraging PR firms to edit through an approval process; it increases our costs and gains us rather little. We'll still have to hunt down and deal with the defecting PR firms and other bias pushers, and frankly I doubt that the gain from the cooperating PR firms will be significant.
Kelly