At 01:44 PM 4/4/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
What about Wikipedia editors who change career to become PR people? :-)
Carcharoth
(Who nevers wants to be a PR person, ever)
Not even to support a cause which, you might know, is not
representing itself well, and you could help?
Pure, ethics-free PR,
At 12:00 PM 4/4/2010, William Pietri wrote:
If there is gray area, it is the PR person's job to maximally exploit
that without ever getting caught. It's our job to minimize the gray area.
Well, that's one kind of PR. This negative view of PR is common, and
justified because that's exactly what
On 5 April 2010 17:59, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
At 01:44 PM 4/4/2010, Carcharoth wrote:
What about Wikipedia editors who change career to become PR people? :-)
Carcharoth
(Who nevers wants to be a PR person, ever)
Not even to support a cause which, you might know, is
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
If there is gray area, it is the PR person's job to maximally exploit
that without ever getting caught. It's our job to minimize the gray area.
I think the reason people feel that we can generally detect PR spin in
the wiki environment is that PR people
What about Wikipedia editors who change career to become PR people? :-)
Carcharoth
(Who nevers wants to be a PR person, ever)
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 5:00 PM, William Pietri will...@scissor.com wrote:
I think we are pretty much in agreement.
If there is gray area, it is the PR person's job to
Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong
with it?
Dunno. Nothing wrong with it as PR, obviously, almost by definition. As
we know, what we can enforce (pretty much) is that people edit within
the rules; we cannot in any sense enforce the
On 04/02/2010 12:51 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Here's the question: If you can't tell it's PR, is there anything wrong
with it?
Possibly, which is the problem. The main function of PR is to put the
best spin on things in a way that everybody accepts that as the truth.
By its nature, it's
I'm don't think that is always true which is what DGG was getting at. You
are right you CAN run the risk of them being so good that you can't tell
it's spin but to be honest you usually can in the wiki environment. A good
PR group is going to know that just getting a well written article on
A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if
they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about
their client, not necessarily to directly promote them. In the fields
I work in, I have frequently worked with PR staff, and about half of
them have proved open
That's right. It isn't that we don't want an article and a skilled PR
editor ought to be able to write an article the average editor could not
tell was written by a PR person. The clue to bad work is lifting stuff
from the company's website. And, of course, the complete absence of any
negative
They may presume that the presence of stuff that hasn't yet been
de-pufferied (I made that word up) means that what they write will
stay. But the key point is lack of control. If you put something on
Wikipedia, you cannot control the content and that is what a lot of
people fail to understand. It
I think continued monitoring of an article by a skilled PR operative
would result in an informative, well-referenced article, which notes, but
does not dwell on negative aspects. As noted, such an effort would have
to integrated with our usual editing patterns.
Here's the question: If you can't
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 12:40 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com wrote:
A PR agent should be able to learn how to write a neutral article, if
they see one aspect of their role as to provide information about
their client, not necessarily to directly promote them.
Yes. Treated properly,
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 12:58 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I'm not sure about bot-seeded and maintained topics. You need to have
the human editors to go with that. Having bots doing stuff *without*
humans working with them and complementing them, tends to be a recipe
for
http://rushprnews.com/2010/03/31/pr-consultants-should-think-twice-before-using-wikipedia-to-promote-clients
PR consultants should think twice before using Wikipedia to promote clients
March 31, 2010
Leicestershire, UK (RPRN) 03/31/10 — PR consultants are being advised
to think twice before
Excellent piece. Especially the close about how it's a difficult position
for PR professionals to report to the client that the article was deleted.
-Durova
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:35 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
16 matches
Mail list logo
