On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether
that is a positive or a
negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors
and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for
some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation
it is also promotional.
I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional,
especially in a case like Monmouth Museum.
If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch
of spin doctors with
usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously
promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their
clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less coverage
than their charity work.
As it is, we have PR professionals calling themselves some fantasy name
making the same arguments, whether they are justified or not. I'd rather
know who they are, but YMMV.
It's a big fallacy to assume that by pushing things underground, they have
ceased to exist, and that appearances should be more important than
realities.
Andreas