On 12/03/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/12/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
We do not need those people editing on Wikipedia.
No one has ever suggested we would allow the type of behaviour that Almeda is attempting. There is a world of difference between someone attempting to expand or improve a subject field, for remuneration, and someone repeatedly working on the perceived bias of one particular article.
It's a big grey continuum and really, in practice they do in fact push it as absolutely far as they can and further. Ask Danny about the sort of calls he gets from aggrieved PR people upset that their on-topic links and exciting accurate content has been removed and they've been blocked ... then he looks and it's spam spam spam spam without even the chips. You're speaking in theory, but the reality is already *horrible*.
There are all sorts of ways we could handle this. Like "You can pay someone to edit articles on your behalf. But you have to tell us first, and if we tell you to stop, you have to stop." What's wrong with that?
They don't stop and they won't stop. I'm guessing here, you understand. But as has been pointed out before in this thread, the whole point of PR is POV-pushing; it's antithetical to Wikipedia.
- d.