On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 3:23 PM, WereSpielChequers < [email protected]> wrote:
> I wouldn't dispute that it is transparent, whether that is a positive or a > negative is another issue, transparency certainly works for some editors > and unlike promotional names transparency is allowed. Even required for > some sorts of COI editing. But as it includes the name of the organisation > it is also promotional. > I am not sure I agree that a name in itself is *unduly* promotional, especially in a case like Monmouth Museum. > If PR agency Acme PR were to start to employ a bunch of spin doctors with > usernames such as "Millie C from Acme PR" then it would be obviously > promotional. Especially if they were active on wiki arguing that their > clients criminal records should be expunged or at least given less coverage > than their charity work. > As it is, we have PR professionals calling themselves some fantasy name making the same arguments, whether they are justified or not. I'd rather know who they are, but YMMV. It's a big fallacy to assume that by pushing things underground, they have ceased to exist, and that appearances should be more important than realities. Andreas
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
