On 8/22/06, Erik Moeller <eloquence(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I guess my counter is: We already have PR firms
operating in secret.
If we can't deal with secret POV pushing PR firms who can afford to
learn the processes schmmoze our editors, then we've already lost.
That is unhelpful rhetoric. What does it mean to "have lost"?
Wikipedia is not going to disappear tomorrow just because we have some
PR in some articles. We can deal with secretive activities when we
detect them; that is not a logical argument for not creating a
framework where these organizations can achieve some of their aims
(where they are legitimate and in line with our own) while not doing
harm.
As you admit, we can deal with secretive activities, so obviously we
haven't lost...
Our existing mechanisms are fully functional. We don't need special
ones for PR firms any more than we need special cases for Congressmen,
TV personalities, Gibraltarians, Friends of Gays (okay, perhaps
them...) , or anyone else. My argument, which you've accused of being
unhelpful, is simply that should our mechanisms for dealing with
clandestine POV pushers fail, any issues with identified biased users
will be trivial by comparison.
We have an existing framework where anyone can 'achieve their aims',
so long as they are aligned with the aims of the project. We call it
editing, and we're very open about who we allow to participate.
If someone is acting in our interests, they are indistinguishable from
any other good editor. We don't need to create a special framework for
people who come to Wikipedia with little interest outside of their own
benefit. We have one for them already: banning.
I'm sorry that I didn't make this more clear in my prior post.
You can easily compare this to the struggle against
sock puppets and
trolls. Sure, we can "deal with" sock puppets and trolls when we
detect them. That, again, is not an argument for not building policies
and community structures where harmful behavior is neutralized in ways
that do not lead to such disruption.
I'm confused; our policy on socks and trolls is that we do not
accommodate them when they make their interest known.
Wikipedia is not for trolls, just as Wikipedia is not for PR firms.
We should rightly tell both to go away.
Some trolls return in secret, but we can deal with them.
I have only proposed that we treat PR firms exactly the same way.
--
Greg