Bell Pottinger investigation Options

[mbz1]

Jimbo declines unblock with a reason: "pending outcome of Bell Pottinger investigation" I do not recall seeing Jimbo declined unblocks. Does somebody know what is Bell Pottinger investigation?

[mbz1]

"Jimmy" is teaching Bell Pottinger how to it right

Jimmy is supposed to be giving a talk to them on how to edit Wikipedia ethically, being open about who they are.

I believe it is a very interesting development. If PR firms are allowed to edit on behalf of their clients,does it mean that a paid editing (which I personally have nothing against) is
going to be officially allowed?

[thekohser]

"Jimmy" is teaching Bell Pottinger how to it right

Jimmy is supposed to be giving a talk to them on how to edit Wikipedia ethically, being open about who they are.

I believe it is a very interesting development. If PR firms are allowed to edit on behalf of their clients,does it mean that a paid editing (which I personally have nothing against) is
going to be officially allowed?

Sigh...

Wikip/media people can say "disclose who you are, be open" all they like; but when a PR firm begins to try that technique, even to remove falsehoods from their clients' Wikipedia articles, "the community" will give them so much push-back and grief, it won't be very long before the PR firm throws up its hands in frustration and just goes back to the "old" way of doing things. Because going undisclosed and pseudonymous is the advantage of the incumbent Wikipediots, any sane person soon discovers that you have to fight fire with fire.

And Jimmy doesn't really care. In fact, the kerfuffle just gives the press another reason to contact him, and that's his objective -- to be in the spotlight.

[mbz1]

"Jimmy" is teaching Bell Pottinger how to it right

Jimmy is supposed to be giving a talk to them on how to edit Wikipedia ethically, being open about who they are.

I believe it is a very interesting development. If PR firms are allowed to edit on behalf of their clients,does it mean that a paid editing (which I personally have nothing against) is
going to be officially allowed?

Sigh...

Wikip/media people can say "disclose who you are, be open" all they like; but when a PR firm begins to try that technique, even to remove falsehoods from their clients' Wikipedia articles, "the community" will give them so much push-back and grief, it won't be very long before the PR firm throws up its hands in frustration and just goes back to the "old" way of doing things. Because going undisclosed and pseudonymous is the advantage of the incumbent Wikipediots, any sane person soon discovers that you have to fight fire with fire.

And Jimmy doesn't really care. In fact, the kerfuffle just gives the press another reason to contact him, and that's his objective -- to be in the spotlight.

OK, but if we are to put all these arguments aside.
Isn't PR firms editing on behalf of their clients no matter how ethical and open it is going to be violates a policy about paid editing, or there are not such policy on wikipedia? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)