QUOTE
...now, they are now being...
Quality's slipping, even on the Financial Times.
QUOTE
Reputations were damaged once the changes were discovered and made public.
Oh, really? Damaged for perhaps a few days, then everyone forgot about said "damage". That is just an oft-repeated myth begun, I believe, by our wiki-witch Durova.
QUOTE
...it is now vital that organisations take an active role in monitoring what is said about them; they must abide by Wikipedia’s rules of openness; when updating a Wikipedia entry, they should leave a note explaining the changes made; and they should engage with and help editors interested in their subjects.
And how is the "organization" supposed to personify their role? What will the organization's screen name be? Good luck with that immediate block.
The Italian firm Lundquist has obviously learned nothing from Anvil Media's disastrous experience a couple of years ago.
And the cycle goes on. Stupid PR firms, stupid media, stupid Wikipedia.
My paid editing business is going nicely enough. I currently have some very gratifying business with a client in Europe. She trips over her words with appreciation for my work. It's endearing.