On 1/31/07, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"David Gerard" wrote
Another bad publicity storm such as happened last
week to Microsoft is
absolutely not in Wikipedia or Wikimedia's interests. We don't want to
make organisations fearful of coming near us.
OK. How long is it going to take before self-styled "press officers" actually
inform >themselves _properly_ about WP?
Why should they? It isn't as if we are a major part of their job.
I mean, the teaboy in the PR room is going to be given
the job of actually editing the site.
Seeing as it is possible he is the one who knows most about wikipedia
that may not be a bad thing.
But people who are _employed_ to know about PR should
be
_professional_ in their >approach. Not assume that 'free to edit' is
'free PR'; that's an entirely amateur view, that it >costs nothing and
never can have any downside or fallout.
In most places it means exactly that. Who's who, various business
directories these are free PR. Wikipedia is rather odd in that
respect.
--
geni