I wasn't familiar with the discussion/voting process and stayed out of it, and to be frank I was happy for the entries to be quickly edited by the community. I just wanted to 'seed' the company names and see what transpired.

However I was disappointed to see them quickly flagged as 'PR' along with my own personal ID (which was common to both entries).

Wikipedia needs an FAQ explaining to PR people of the best way of starting entries on companies. Especially when (as in our case) the companies are the most frequently mentioned in their industry in certain consumer forums and usenet groups.

Also, pretending we are not PR people (or not revealing ourselves as such as suggested above) is the wrong answer. Sheesh, we're just getting used to the fact that we have to reveal ourselves more often, not the opposite.

Also, the only way to get Jimmy Wales to change his mind about PRs is to stop proving him right, but I doubt he is inclined to give us a chance.

Stuart's comment above may have some sunshine and lollipops in it, but the fact that Wikipedia is ignoring self-sourcing altogether is just not right. When your policies start making what Microsoft did look good, then there's a problem.

Stuart, it just might be time to move out of your parents' basement.

- Amanda

It is also wrong to assume that money is the only motivation for people to do the wrong thing. There are lots of other far stronger motivations why people would want to tamper with entries.

PR people might have a 'bad reputation', but it is fairly easy to find out the truth about what public relations is really about – last time I looked the Wikipedia entry was fairly accurate

I don't know Wales' motivation for making negative assumptions about other people's motives, but the fact that he is so negative means that he appears to have a pretty sad view of the world.

Just letting you all know.

If your client happens to be the subject of libel, they (or you) could always email info-en@wikimedia.org and indicate which article(s) is/are wrong, and how to fix it. Wikipedia takes libel very seriously and I've heard of an administrator banning a person for a month for posting a hoax about a politician's death.

Note that Wikipedia has a policy called "Biographies of Living Persons," which dictates that information about living people (especially the kind that would ruin one's reputation) which isn't justified by a source may be removed at any time. If you remove content per this rule, be sure to note it in the edit summary, or you may be confused for an article vandal.

I have no official relationship with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, however I've been around there for a while and I feel I know how things work.

I understand what you are saying, so how do we keep the threat of 'editors for hire' balanced with the need to have Wikipedia have accurate information? That's the debate, and I think both sides need to give a little.