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.matth...@ntlworld.com > wrote: > On 15 November 2012 12:04, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@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-by-Step_Guide:_How_to_improve_articles > > > > 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 > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
