On 15 November 2012 14:10, Thomas Morton <[email protected]> wrote: > We have two customers, and one "employee" role, I think. And it should go > something like (in order of importance): > > Reader (Customer) > Subject (Customer) > Editor (Employee) > > Or in other words; because the PR company represents the subject of the > article, and we rank so highly on Google etc., they should reasonably expect > to receive a good service from us.
No, that assumes what needs to be proved. This thread arose because the readers' interests were damaged by PR editing. PR folk should only be charging for a service they can actually deliver. If they can't edit properly, within NPOV and all that implies, they have no right to be on WP, and they also have no right to ask for money from clients for alleged services they can render. And you can call the attitude "if the guidelines are inconvenient we can game them" many things, but "professional" is not one of them. If PR folk wish to have any status as professional representatives of individuals or organisations, it must be on our terms, and they must respect, at a bare minimum, the mission of the site and the terms of use. From my experience, subjects of BLP would to better to hire a lawyer, who would at least understand some of that. Charles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
