On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)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