On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 16 November 2012 08:08, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
If they hire a lawyer it goes to legal@,which can be even slower and usually ends up with a recommendation back to OTRS.
Your reply here is what I call the insider fallacy. Because we are wikipedians we consider Wikipedia and the mission the most important thing.
It is not so much a "fallacy" as integral to the definition of "conflict of interest" we use. Which, as Andy was pointing out, is actually more permissive than it might be. That is because it allows us to distinguish between "potential conflict of interest" and actually not being able to hack it with NPOV.
An article subject justifiably doesn't care about that compared to his reputation.
Now of course I agree a PR company is not necessairuly altruistic in the sense of protecting a clients reputation. They are paid after all, and the more positive the coverage the better their payout!
But people DO hire PR firms to handle genuine issues with their biographies, and we currently treat those people badly.
Those of use who contributed to the draft CIPR guide are aware of the need to improve the relationship.
On the other hand I don't think your stance here really holds water.
If a PR firm promises a client that it will do something that is outside the recognised way of editing WP for PR pros, it is not behaving properly. If it invoices a client for a service and the service has not been carried out properly, it is treating the client badly. Particularly if anyone working for a PR firm indulges in "misrepresenting your affiliation with any individual or entity" (see terms of use at
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_... ) to get under our radar, they are behaving in a markedly unprofessional fashion.
I mentioned lawyers for a couple of reasons. They are not going to throw up their hands at procedures, and likewise are not going to promise clients that something can be done quickly unless it can be. Also they will be trained (by moots etc.) to see the point of "writing for the enemy" which is the crux of NPOV from the point of restraining advocacy. The snag with lawyers is that they will likely treat policy pages as legal drafting when they are not. But in any case the contrast is instructive, I think.
Charles, I really am a bit mystified here. First of all, I would echo Tom's point about the insider fallacy. In quality management terms, the people Wikipedia writes about are customers, just as readers are. That's quality management ABC, and I can't imagine why you would contest that.
Secondly, even the WMUK/CIPR guideline allows that there is a way for PR companies to contribute: by using the talk page and noticeboards. At least those PR professionals who comply with that guideline deserve to receive efficient service, and there can be no intimation that what they do is in any way improper, and had better be done by a lawyer. And if all they do is use talk pages and noticeboards, then they don't have to be able to edit within NPOV to have a right to be at the WP table. Just turning up on a talk page is enough. Do you disagree?
Thirdly, as Andy has pointed out, PR professionals and employees are not actually at present forbidden from editing Wikipedia. Until four weeks ago, people who clicked "Contact us" to report an article problem were presented with one invitation after another to just go and fix the article themselves. And the number of articles edited by organisations' staff is legion. I sometimes think a quarter of Wikipedia wouldn't exist if it weren't for conflict-of-interest edits. They're everywhere. Pick any article on a minor company, musician or publication, and chances are you'll find the subject or staff members in the edit history.
People have PR departments, or hire PR agents, to manage their reputation. That's just how it is. If they come to Wikipedia with a justified complaint, Wikipedia should have a process in place that does not require them to edit the article themselves, but provides them with a reasonable level of service, and gets things done when that's the right thing to do. There should be no quibbling that PR professionals have no right to complain in Wikipedia.
I don't think that's what you're saying, as you say you are well aware of the need to improved the relationship between Wikipedia and PR professionals, but just what you *are* saying to Tom then escapes me at the moment.
Andreas