On 8/22/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@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.