[WikiEN-l] Fleshlight

[Ray Saintonge]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:

>Bryan Derksen
>  
>
>>It's based on the premise that we have an obligation to accommodate the
>>company's concern over the dilution of the advertising value of their
>>article. We actually have guidelines and policies _against_ that sort of
>>thing; Wikipedia:Spam, Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines, Wikipedia:Neutral
>>point of view.
>>    
>>
>We have an obligation to living individuals to show them a decent
>level of human compassion.  Here I think we can accommodate the
>company's concerns by redirecting to artificial vagina, which means
>that their Google presence will not be tainted by directly associating
>their product with competitors.
>
There's nothing wrong with mentioning competitors.  If we describe a 
product, we can also add links to similar products from other 
companies.  I have no problem with describing any product or company, or 
using a company's advertising as verification of what they say 
themselves about their own products.  If the information comes from 
company flyers we need to say that too.  This alone does not mean that 
we are advertising the product because we also accept impartial reports 
about the product, or competitors' claims as equally worthy of 
inclusion.  If these other claims are less than flattering, too bad for 
them.  When it comes to controversial products we should support the 
reader's right to receive a neutral picture of the product.

Since we do not accept advertising we have no contractual obligation to 
say only good things about the company.

Ec