Why Wikipedia Needs Marketers, by David King (a self-described "paid editor") Options

[thekohser]

This article has some interesting value, because it mostly makes sense... but it's far too late to effectively lay this sort of groundwork.

By the by, King is building up a little portfolio of published content related to Wikipedia and marketing.

[Anne Sexton]

And now he's going to be in the signpost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=454199593

And why does he call articles "wikis" on his user page and elsewhere? It would have exposed him even if he'd not given himself up. Wikipedia is well-guarded with shibboleths.

[thekohser]

And why does he call articles "wikis" on his user page and elsewhere?

Another bit of his writing included:

...the Wiki is bias (sic) and needs improvement.

I see that it use (sic) to be much worse.

[tarantino]

And why does he call articles "wikis" on his user page and elsewhere?

Another bit of his writing included:

...the Wiki is bias (sic) and needs improvement.

I see that it use (sic) to be much worse.

That's David King, Wikipedia Expert, for ya!

David King is a PR and social media marketing professional with a unique expertise in Wikipedia. He's created and led the Wikipedia practice for PR agencies for three years and written dozens of Wikis on Fortune 500 companies, major legislation, politicians, technology categories and startups. He has also trained new Wikipedians around the globe.

David comes to us from Silicon Valley, where he supported B2B technology companies ranging from the Fortune 500 to stealth startups. In his line of work David has demonstrated exponential growth in social media results, secured regular mainstream media coverage for embedded technology companies and routinely provided strategic recommendations that consistently bolstered results to dozens of companies.

[Cla68]

If anyone here has ever tried to add information that could be perceived as negative to any of the SeaWorld, Disney, or other theme park-related articles in Wikipedia, you might agree with me that those articles appear to be watched very closely and controlled by a small group of dedicated editors. I suspect those editors are working for marketing firms representing the US theme park industry. I don't think those editors would support King's proposal for more openness by editors acting on behalf of marketing firms, if they are, in fact, marketers, because it would open them up to obvious COI and POV allegations in the way they try to protect those articles from any type of pejorative information.