Is there any collected consensus on PR editing or is it all still a
lot of shouting? I'm not asking for your own opinions, but if there's
anywhere this is being discussed in some sort of abstractable manner.
I ask because next Wednesday I will be the Wikipedian at an episode of
the CIPR TV
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any collected consensus on PR editing or is it all still a
lot of shouting? I'm not asking for your own opinions, but if there's
anywhere this is being discussed in some sort of abstractable manner.
Came up at the London
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
They're also interested in
https://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Draft_best_practice_guidelines_for_PR
which is a how-not-to-foul-up guide put together by WMUK. But of
course that's descriptive and not normative.
I think a line you could
On 13 June 2012 15:51, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 13 June 2012 14:14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Is there any collected consensus on PR editing or is it all still a
lot of shouting? I'm not asking for your own opinions, but if there's
anywhere this is being discussed in some
On 13 June 2012 15:51, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Came up at the London meetup. Opinion ranges talking to PR people to
injecting formic acid into their eyeballs. So I'm going to stay we are
still at the lot of shouting stage.
Following on from that discussion, one thing I think I
I had to explain this once, and my notes read something like this:
Skilled PR people know there's a story to tell. They think in terms of the
story. But Wikipedia is a neutral source. We think in terms of significant
facts. So there's a fundamental new kind of writing style and filter of
what
On 6/13/12, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
If instead of saying what do we think of PR people editing
Wikipedia? we said under what circumstances should administrators
act on the requests of PR people?, I think we might have a way out of
the conundrum.
One small correction there.
