Gregory Kohs - 15 December 2011

I'm sorry, but what I see here are a number of facile responses to a Wikipedia problem that you can't really fully understand until you've been an editor of Wikipedia for many years, as I have been. On Wikipedia, there are many entrenched, pseudonymous editors who work in teams, pushing their anti-corporate agendas. Many of them are also administrators of Wikipedia. A business needs to swiftly and deftly defend its reputation from false claims, unsubstantiated libel, and/or disproportionate criticism. All of which are against the written "rules" of Wikipedia, but are not enforced in practice. Bell Pottinger failed in that they got caught. Companies that need swift and deftly-handled remediation of Wikipedia defamation can still go to Wikipedia's various paid editing services, such as my own Wikipedia Review, and obtain experienced assistance -- all under the security of a non-disclosure agreement. I have never pushed an untruthful agenda on behalf of a client, and I have never minimized Wikipedia-based criticism of a client beyond a level that would be proportionate to the subject for an encyclopedia. For example, Wikipedians imagine that there is nothing wrong with a politician's biography being composed 65% of details about an industrial accident that took place at the politician's FORMER employer, many years AFTER the politician exited that business. Sane people in the real world know that it's not a "fair and balanced" biography, but you'd never know it, trying to combat the entrenched Wikipedians who want to keep it that way -- insane, unfair, and imbalanced.