I was involved in the CIPR guidelines and I pushed very had for the guidelines to say PR people reading the guidelines should not edit the COI pages. There are circumstances where a PR pro can edit a page but they need a bit of experience editing WP first.
The CIPR guidelines are not aimed at those people. They are aimed at the PR pro but WP noob who has been told by his boss to fix something on WP. The CIPR guidelines give him something from the CIPR that he can show his boss to explain why it is not practical to fix it just like that. You do not want much grey in those guidelines, none in the intro and the first few paragraphs. At most have some 'advanced techniwues' in the last paragraph.
Joe
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16 November 2012 13:11, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
The supreme irony here is that Wikipedia set out to be open, in contrast
to
the ivory tower of academe. Yet over the space of a decade, Wikipedia has become so involved, and its policy so impenetrable and contradictory,
that
people are now making a living from guiding others through it.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_system#Layered_defense . It's about living in the real world.
It is quite possible for policies to contradict each other, or be in tension. I don't regard this as one of our major issues, however.
Charles
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org