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.