Nice one... Claim your opponent is delusional instead of bringing any actual arguments.
I'm under no delusions that dirty tricks aren't employed now, mosty because i reverted quite a few of them, Like the attempt of an employee of a major entertainment company trying to have another user blocked for unwelcome edits. I've gotten a haughty mail from a VP of PR of anothe major company after reverting his edits which turned the article into an advertorial, a college professor playing dummy and pretending not to understand the concept of selfpromotion.... etc ad nauseam. I think i know what im talking about, and i havent even started on guys like Miroslav Magola. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kleuske/Miroslaw_Magola
So, as far as i'm concerned, the only good PR-guys are banned PR-guys. I don't care what POV you're payed to represent, it ain't NPOV.
On the basis of the premisse of their jobs, i can, without prejudice say that. You seem to be convinced that PR-people act only out of the goodness of their hearts and complete disregard to their employers POV, which is a tad on the very naive side.
They can, but that's not the issue.PR-folk, if they want to be ethical, should not contribute at all. Contributions are bound to be non-neutral and transparancy does not help that issue one bit.
Another objection is that these professionals get payed for doing what they do, and hence can easily afford to spend the entire workday working the article, thus putting the occasional contributor, i.e. one that does have (an) other job(s) to tend to at a disadvantage.
The result will be that
a) sensitive articles will be dominated by PR-people getting payed to make it reflect the companies POV (and let's not forget, that is what they are payed to do)
b) WP:NPOV and the public perception of WP's neutrality will go to the dogs.
And I know the practice you describe is commonplace. I've reverted or nominated quite a few PR-pieces and, since the PR people are PAYED and TRAINED to get their point across, it almost inevitably results in a lengthy debate on (oftentimes) silly or trivial points, killing the joy of being a wikipedia editor.
Then there's the issue of astroturfing. If you cannot be sure which articles were written to provide information and wich articles were written by professionals to reflect the POV of company X, wikipedia is useless. It will be no more than an advertisement venue, a lobbyists paradise.
In order to keep the playing field level, professional PR-people should be banned indefinately.
Being an avid contributor and vandalfighter I do have an opinion on this one. One of the most important, no, the most important things in wikipedia is neutrality. It is nice to think that lobbyists want to ethically contribute, but it's clear from the outset that they cannot neutrally contribute. Either they're not doing their jobs or they are not neutral. I think pro's should be banned for that reason.
I don't mind if a fellow nerd calls me a nerd, i take it as a compliment. It's something else when these overgrown jockstraps start calling us nerds and/or geeks. I think Steward danced around that effect quite elegantly.
It occurs to me that if Righthaven produces the transcripts, the bottom will fall out from under its settlement-business. This suggests the stalling is more than just obstinate behavior, it's trying to stay in business. I bet they'd rather risk contempt of court that actually informing their intended victims and they will stall as long as they can. I see a bankruptcy looming...
Another irony-meter gone. Does anyone know what the prices on ignorantium are these days? I figure i need some to shield myself and my equipment from the sheer mass of irony emitted on the net these days. Does anyone have a clue on whether the new cynicium based irony-dampers actually work?
In fact it has made the problem worse by putting a de facto monopoly in the hands of criminals, who have no qualms about using weapons, or selling real nasty stuff to youngsters.Ask a Mexican how prohibition worked out, then ask a dutchman how their tolerance worked out.I dare to surmise both will agree the Dutch solution worked better. Much better.
An incompetent programmer would be likely to _hide_ his incompetence behind the locked doors of an ironclad EULA, non-disclosure agreements and (in particular) a (very) closed source model. Allowing others to view the actual code, seems something for more self-confident and competent programmers.
But hey... M$ fudding it isn't exactly new. They've been playing this card as long as they exist.
Being the leader of a small time band only very few people have ever heard of ("Kleuske & the Bad Boys") and a photographer, using the Creative Commons license to make my/our work available to a wider audience, especially in commons.wikimedia.org i take exception at the false claims of this Content Crusader.
Creative Commons offers me/us a way to distribute my/our work without any bureaucratic hassle whilst retaining a proper copyright to all my works.
Frankly, I find the absurd claim someone is trying to "silence" this clown offensive. The fact that he refuses an open debate on the subject, after making such claims as he did is a sure sign of pure, unadulterated cowardice.