On 12/03/07, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/12/07, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
wrote:
> We do not need those people editing on Wikipedia.
No one has ever suggested we would allow the type of
behaviour that
Almeda is attempting. There is a world of difference between someone
attempting to expand or improve a subject field, for remuneration, and
someone repeatedly working on the perceived bias of one particular
article.
It's a big grey continuum and really, in practice they do in fact push
it as absolutely far as they can and further. Ask Danny about the sort
of calls he gets from aggrieved PR people upset that their on-topic
links and exciting accurate content has been removed and they've been
blocked ... then he looks and it's spam spam spam spam without even
the chips. You're speaking in theory, but the reality is already
*horrible*.
There are all sorts of ways we could handle this. Like
"You can pay
someone to edit articles on your behalf. But you have to tell us
first, and if we tell you to stop, you have to stop." What's wrong
with that?
They don't stop and they won't stop. I'm guessing here, you
understand. But as has been pointed out before in this thread, the
whole point of PR is POV-pushing; it's antithetical to Wikipedia.
- d.