The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Making The Case For PR Pros Editing Wikipedia - Techdirt
Newsfeed
post Fri 3rd February 2012, 6:19am
Post #1


Postmaster General
********

Group: Bots
Posts: 3,272
Joined: Mon 3rd Sep 2007, 9:29pm
Member No.: 2,885




<img alt="" height="1" width="1" />Making The Case For PR Pros Editing [b]Wikipedia[/b]
Techdirt
Obscured amidst the hysteria over anti-piracy bills SOPA and PIPA has been a valuable discussion bubbling up within public relations about PR people editing clients' Wikipedia entries. It's a topic that has been debated for years.



View the article
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SB_Johnny
post Fri 3rd February 2012, 11:43am
Post #2


It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined: Mon 15th Sep 2008, 3:10pm
Member No.: 8,272

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE
Our position on this matter is simple: it's wrong for the PR profession to think it can run roughshod over the established Wikipedia community. PR professionals must engage with it in a reasonable manner that respects the community’s rules and protocols, while also ensuring they are acting in their clients' best interests. But the engagement should be a two-way street in which Wikipedia is willing to see and accommodate both sides of the issue. At the moment, we do not believe that to be the case.


I can't help but think this poor guy would really like to say something a bit more blunt. laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Fri 3rd February 2012, 2:37pm
Post #3


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



The author, Corbett, is a fellow with the PRSA. The PRSA is fairly systematically knuckling under to the Wikipedia "community", and we all know where that will lead for individual member firms in the PRSA. They'll come to realize on their own that the Wikipedia community is mostly insane, and so the firms will find their own way (again) and learn ways to make Wikipedia reflect an actual "neutral" point of view (if such a thing even exists).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Fusion
post Fri 3rd February 2012, 4:44pm
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 346
Joined: Tue 29th Nov 2011, 12:40pm
Member No.: 71,526



QUOTE(thekohser @ Fri 3rd February 2012, 2:37pm) *

learn ways to make Wikipedia reflect an actual "neutral" point of view (if such a thing even exists).

I had a problem when I started with English Wikipedia. My English was quite poor then and I was very confused with much of what I read. Then I discovered that Wikipedians often use words in a sense other than the dictionary meaning. People here will be familiar with "harass", "outing", "civility", "legal threat" and so on. Undoubtedly "neutral" is another example. It seems to mean at best "reflect all points of view, even the insane ones, and do not try to discuss their relative merits".
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
EricBarbour
post Sat 4th February 2012, 4:56am
Post #5


blah
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined: Mon 25th Feb 2008, 2:31am
Member No.: 5,066

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



Book, Greg. Get a book out.

Then you'll have a pile of dead tree to send to the PR people. They have to notice that.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd 10 14, 4:48am