I think the principles in Wikipedia:Autobiography could be elaborated
on to express a policy. For example, Wal-Mart has recently hired a
team of public relations experts, organized as a response team (a
"war room"). Our article is an obvious target, especially when we
have editors eagerly adding negative information. I think if they
identified themselves and commented on the talk page we could have no
objection. Surreptitiously editing the article, or edit warring would
be very obnoxious. But keep in mind, they are entitled to object
strongly, even to legal redress, in the case of libel.
The more commen public relations effort is to polish up the positive
aspects of a person or business, create a buzz, etc. Often that is
precisely the behavior we see in autobiographical entries by self-
On May 11, 2006, at 6:10 PM, The Cunctator wrote:
What is the policy (or information about the policy)
with/reporting whitewashing or smearing by interested/paid parties? An
doesn't seem to be under any category... is there any kind of
I almost don't want to justify the practice with a defense, because
sets up a game/conflict for people to "win" at by "beating"
it would be foolish to ignore what will be more prevalent as Wikipedia
Also, I think it would be good for the community to tackle this,
otherwise the Foundation and Jimbo will take the lead, and they have a
necessarily conflict/legal-dispute/panic-mode bias toward the
they're always on the receiving end of irate phone calls or Ann
their face or controversy-seeking journalists. I for one don't
think the "no
interested parties" policy idea is very good, but I can see it being
implemented if a better framework isn't put in place before all
loose. An ounce of prevention and all that.
But only an ounce!
Sorry for the rambling if there's already work that's been done on
issue and I just haven't seen it.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: