PR industry to "cooperate" with Wikipedia Options

[thekohser]

There are a number of well-timed counter-movements in the wake of the Bell Pottinger flap, where consortia of PR industry leaders are going to try to "reach out" to Wikipedia and gain consensus on how PR firms can dutifully and ethically interact with Wikipedia.

I have a feeling that in about 6 months there will be a lot of heartbroken, grieved people in the PR industry.

[Kelly Martin]

I see Jimmy is using his usual oubliette strategy with the CREWE people. Somehow I doubt it will work with them.

[SB_Johnny]

I see Jimmy is using his usual oubliette strategy with the CREWE people. Somehow I doubt it will work with them.

(Jimmy on Facebook): I did not simply ignore the complaint that people don't look at talk pages - I denied it. It is very simply false. If you follow best practices, it is trivially easy to get someone to help you in Wikipedia.

Any action or proposed action put forward in defiance of the facts of reality is destined to fail. A great many of the arguments put forward are unrecognizable to experienced Wikipedians. Can we do a better job of helping to educate you on how to ethically participate in Wikipedia (i.e. NEVER EDIT ARTICLES but do X, Y, and Z) instead? Yes, of course, and that should be the sole focus of this group.

I don't see what is formulaic about my response. It's clear and to the point, and fully addresses the concerns that people have raised. There is a right way and a wrong way to approach Wikipedia if you are a paid advocate - the right way will work, will benefit you and your clients, as well as benefitting Wikipedia. The wrong way calls your ethics into question, embarrasses your clients, and damages the credibility of Wikipedia.

So much for the encyclopedia anybody can edit.