On 20 Sep 2006, at 01:18, Phil Sandifer wrote:
And as for NPOV articles ... if someone is being paid to write articles on these businesses, it isn't going to be NPOV, but it's going to be POV in a way that you could only establish it as such if you were intimately familiar with the subject matter, or were prepared to do lots of research. That's why we have the general prohibition against publicity articles; they tend not to be NPOV, and even when they do appear to be, they likely aren't.
Actually, all we have is a vague admonition against autobiography. It's "considered proper." Nothing else. Consider the [[Cyrus Farivar]] case - the article was started by him. But he's a notable figure, and we kept it. Likewise, if the company is notable, and nobody can find anything wrong with the article, we assume good faith and keep it.
The important point is that enough people are editing an article to keep it neutral. If the only editor is a PR company, then there is no independent scrutiny.
I think products are easier to keep on track than companies, because more people use a product outside a company and can then independently edit.