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.
Tom
On 15 November 2012 12:32, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com
wrote:
>
> > If you look at the CIPR draft best practice guidelines (which are not of
> > course Wikipedia policy at the moment, but are quite similar to Jimbo's
> > "bright line" rule)
> >
> >
>
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR#A_Step-b…
> >
> > you'll see that point 3 begins: "If there is no response ...", and
point
> 4
> > likewise begins, "If you get no response". The process also requires
> people
> > to look through the contributions history to find and contact editors who
> > worked on the article if they don't get a response on the talk page.
> >
> > That *is* cumbersome, and using a central on-wiki noticeboard would
> improve
> > customer satisfaction.
>
> Andreas, the "customer" on Wikipedia is the reader. And forgetting
> that leads to a confusion of "contact Wikipedia" with "complaints
> service".
>
> Readers and editors play different roles in the system. We need to
> keep clear the distinction. (Even if the mechanism for contacting WP
> could do with tweaking, we still need to be clear that the reader
> matters.)
>
> Charles
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia UK mailing list
> wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org
>
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
> WMUK:
http://uk.wikimedia.org
>