"David Gerard" wrote
Another bad publicity storm such as happened last week to Microsoft is absolutely not in Wikipedia or Wikimedia's interests. We don't want to make organisations fearful of coming near us.
OK. How long is it going to take before self-styled "press officers" actually inform themselves _properly_ about WP?
I mean, the teaboy in the PR room is going to be given the job of actually editing the site. But people who are _employed_ to know about PR should be _professional_ in their approach. Not assume that 'free to edit' is 'free PR'; that's an entirely amateur view, that it costs nothing and never can have any downside or fallout.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 1/31/07, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
"David Gerard" wrote
Another bad publicity storm such as happened last week to Microsoft is absolutely not in Wikipedia or Wikimedia's interests. We don't want to make organisations fearful of coming near us.
OK. How long is it going to take before self-styled "press officers" actually inform >themselves _properly_ about WP?
Why should they? It isn't as if we are a major part of their job.
I mean, the teaboy in the PR room is going to be given the job of actually editing the site.
Seeing as it is possible he is the one who knows most about wikipedia that may not be a bad thing.
But people who are _employed_ to know about PR should be
_professional_ in their >approach. Not assume that 'free to edit' is 'free PR'; that's an entirely amateur view, that it >costs nothing and never can have any downside or fallout.
In most places it means exactly that. Who's who, various business directories these are free PR. Wikipedia is rather odd in that respect.