We have two customers, and one "employee" role, I think. And it should go something like (in order of importance):

Reader (Customer)
Subject (Customer)
Editor (Employee)

Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they should reasonably expect to receive a good service from us.

Tom


On 15 November 2012 12:32, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 15 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you look at the CIPR draft best practice guidelines (which are not of
> course Wikipedia policy at the moment, but are quite similar to Jimbo's
> "bright line" rule)
>
> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR#A_Step-by-Step_Guide:_How_to_improve_articles
>
> you'll see that point 3 begins: "If there is no response ...", and point 4
> likewise begins, "If you get no response". The process also requires people
> to look through the contributions history to find and contact editors who
> worked on the article if they don't get a response on the talk page.
>
> That *is* cumbersome, and using a central on-wiki noticeboard would improve
> customer satisfaction.

Andreas, the "customer" on Wikipedia is the reader. And forgetting
that leads to a confusion of "contact Wikipedia" with "complaints
service".

Readers and editors play different roles in the system. We need to
keep clear the distinction. (Even if the mechanism for contacting WP
could do with tweaking, we still need to be clear that the reader
matters.)

Charles

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org