[WikiEN-l] More about PR firms

[Kelly Martin]

On 8/22/06, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> -In a world we where tell PR Firms not to edit:
> * PR firm follows the rules, doesn't edit.
> **Pool of editing people decreased
> **Harm of biased insertions avoided
> or
> * PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
> **We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
> **We fail to detect it: harm remains.
>
> -In a world where we invite PR firms to edit after jumping through hoops:
> *PR firm follows the rules, edits (with boiler plates and notices)
> **Editing community size increased by the addition of editors driven
> by monetary interests in certain POVs.
> **Rightfully distrustful users overscrutnize every word, things we
> would normally accept are rejected
> **Worst of the bias removed, their ability to use Wikipedia for PR
> mostly suppressed.
> **Still some bias and POV leak through, but now through a blessed channel
> **Patient and well funded PR firms are able to wikilawyer to game the
> system, because we have no blanket prohibition.
> * PR firm ignores the rules, secretly inserts biased material.
> **Feel justified because we've permitted them to edit, but not allowed
> them to actually accomplish their goal.
> **We detect it: Harm is mitigated.
> **We fail to detect it: harm remains.

What I got out of this analysis, which I don't see any basis to
contest, is that by allowing PR firms to edit through some sort of
approval process, we get all the costs of a bureacracy to manage
approved PR firms, without in any way eliminating the cost of
monitoring for PR firms (and others!) who attempt to push biased
content clandestinely.

>From a cost-benefit standpoint, I see insufficient value in
encouraging PR firms to edit through an approval process; it increases
our costs and gains us rather little.  We'll still have to hunt down
and deal with the defecting PR firms and other bias pushers, and
frankly I doubt that the gain from the cooperating PR firms will be
significant.

Kelly