On 16 November 2012 08:08, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
If they hire a lawyer it goes to legal@,which can be even slower and usually ends up with a recommendation back to OTRS.
Your reply here is what I call the insider fallacy. Because we are wikipedians we consider Wikipedia and the mission the most important thing.
It is not so much a "fallacy" as integral to the definition of "conflict of interest" we use. Which, as Andy was pointing out, is actually more permissive than it might be. That is because it allows us to distinguish between "potential conflict of interest" and actually not being able to hack it with NPOV.
An article subject justifiably doesn't care about that compared to his reputation.
Now of course I agree a PR company is not necessairuly altruistic in the sense of protecting a clients reputation. They are paid after all, and the more positive the coverage the better their payout!
But people DO hire PR firms to handle genuine issues with their biographies, and we currently treat those people badly.
Those of use who contributed to the draft CIPR guide are aware of the need to improve the relationship.
On the other hand I don't think your stance here really holds water.
If a PR firm promises a client that it will do something that is outside the recognised way of editing WP for PR pros, it is not behaving properly. If it invoices a client for a service and the service has not been carried out properly, it is treating the client badly. Particularly if anyone working for a PR firm indulges in "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" (see terms of use at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_...) to get under our radar, they are behaving in a markedly unprofessional fashion.
I mentioned lawyers for a couple of reasons. They are not going to throw up their hands at procedures, and likewise are not going to promise clients that something can be done quickly unless it can be. Also they will be trained (by moots etc.) to see the point of "writing for the enemy" which is the crux of NPOV from the point of restraining advocacy. The snag with lawyers is that they will likely treat policy pages as legal drafting when they are not. But in any case the contrast is instructive, I think.
Charles