[WikiEN-l] Fwd: The counterattack of the PR companies

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> On 18 April 2012 23:29, Ken Arromdee <arromdee at rahul.net> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Apr 2012, Charles Matthews wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, this is exactly the point. The conversation where we explain very
> >> patiently to someone what our definition of COI is and is not; and the
> >> response is "you're telling me that if I sail close to the wind on NPOV
> >> but
> >> don't quite go over the line, then whatever my potential conflict of
> >> interest is, then I'm not breaking your rules". That conversation is
> >> exactly why the whole business is arcane _to people who think they are
> >> paid
> >> to sail close to the wind and get away with it_. E.g. people with good
> >> legal advisers who are smart enough to listen to the advice and
> understand
> >> the fine print.
> >>
> >
> > If someone tells you to drive at 5 miles under the speed limit rather
> than
> > to drive at the speed limit, he may be trying to keep you from getting
> too
> > close to a line.
> >
> > If someone tells you *not to drive at all* rather than to drive at the
> > speed
> > limit, that no longer has anything to do with "getting close to a line".
> > He's just making up his own rules.
> >
> > Or he may have noticed that you are off your face or otherwise not fit to
> drive, and is applying common sense. Good metaphor.
>
> But you do seem hung up on "rules". Without the required understanding that
> there are indeed sub-sub-clauses, such as the requirement to "edit for the
> enemy" that is written into WP:NPOV, that are implicit in WP:COI, and
> without the idea that WP is a purposeful activity and has aims that should
> be appreciated (which is there in black-and-white in WP:COI), there is no
> way some people can do what we want.
>
> Continuation of conversation:
>
> "Look, we're all impressed with Wikipedia. But you seem to be saying that
> to edit I have to put your project ahead of my day job; and so I think you
> guys are just a bit crazed."
>
> "Right both times."
>
> "And you're now telling me I have to flack for the opponents of the guy I
> am paid by, and put their criticisms into due form in the the way that,
> frankly, they are too dumb to do, using the skills I have but against the
> brief I have been given."
>
> "Yup, that's what it says on the page about neutrality."
>
> "Well ... where I come from ... words fail me ..."
>
> This is really not the beginning of a beautiful friendship.



Well, in reality the discussion may be more like this:

"Oy, Wikipedia is beating up on my client. What User:Geteven has written
here is totally unfair. Can you believe, he goes on for 500 words about
that product recall we had three years ago? The entire article on our
company is only 600 words long."

"It is sourced. Don't delete negative material."

"You do realise that there have been over 5,000 newspaper articles on our
company in the last 10 years, and only three of them mention that product
recall?"

"I don't know about this. [Thinks: That dude has a conflict of interest. He
may be lying. PR people are paid to lie. He is probably lying.] Don't
delete sourced negative material. We cannot allow you to censor the
article."

"But why do you enable people to portray us in the worst light? It's
totally unfair. We think this was written by a disgruntled employee,
Gareth, whom we fired last year. He was involved with that issue."

"You have just outed one of our contributors. Wikipedia takes outing very
seriously. Your comment has been oversighted, and you have been blocked for
one week. You may appeal your block on your talk page."

"Please unblock me. Why have I been punished when it is User:Geteven who is
abusing Wikipedia?"

"We will only unblock you only when you show us that you realise what you
did was very, very wrong. You clearly don't. Instead you continue to
pretend it is everybody else's fault. Unblock denied."

Etc.

Not the beginning of a beautiful relationship either.

For those interested, there is an ongoing court case involving a scenario
somewhat similar to this:

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/law_librarian_blog/2012/04/whats-the-difference-between-stating-facts-or-opinion-online-wikipedia-contributor-faces-defamation-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LawLibrarianBlog+%28Law+Librarian+Blog%29

Andreas