On 6 December 2011 16:08, Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer(a)gmail.com> wrote: I think the NOTW journalists are now looking for jobs that don't involve a lifetime of crime. Nearer to home, I have had a few contacts/discussions involving points material to how a spin-doctor/lobbyist should operate within the Wikipedia framework. But anyone who really understands what Wikipedia is after should be able to provide the right advice. AGF goes with "assume complete ignorance as the baseline". The problem with PR types is that the approach is typically in line with the proverb about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. I was sitting in a pub on a family occasion when, oops, up comes the COI guideline, with someone telling me that they'd had the company lawyer look over what they were doing. I had to make the point back that our guidelines are not legal documents. That sort of thing. We might make our expectations, in the case of companies, clearer along the lines that we want the kind of article a business school academic might write as background for a case study, not the type a flack would put together. The trouble is that the Web world is populated by autodidacts; in fact the whole thrust of the personal computing revolution is that we all assume nothing should need any training any more. The market is supposed to match supply of training to demand, but if there is a point to this thread it would that that proposition looks a bit suspect in this context. Charles

Does that relate to a known employee or client? Fred

There is an excellent story on the BBC about this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16084861 They've really understood our position on these matters. It looks like David Gerard is responsible for helping them understand, so thank you David!