DISQUS

http://www.twowest.com/

If you go through their "challenger quiz" and some other aspects of navigation, it will lead you to the opt-in for one or more of the "orange papers." It also looks like there's a link directly to them under "Learn."

Carson

A few days ago, I found a local ad agency's site that was offering "orange papers" for free download. Their logo/color scheme was orange and they even made a point of mentioning something about how these documents were too interesting/exciting/hot/whatever to be regular ol' white papers.

I'm sure you weren't just talking about changing color designations (ha), but I thought that was an interesting way to breathe a little life into a descriptor that's too often wrongly perceived as being dry or boring.

Personally, I think "white paper" is probably perfect for many settings, but that different terms might play better with other audiences.

Carson

I guess "nerdy PC guy" has a little bit of history to rub in the face of "hipster Apple dude."

Carson

Mike-

Absolutely. Wikipedia is an open door for vengeance (justified or otherwise).

It's an interesting experience in a free marketplace of ideas, but with the added component of universally-accessible editing in addition to composition.

The issues this conversation raises, in my opinion, go well past Wikipedia. They invite an examination of the theory underlying marketplace of idea principles, free speech (both its awesome powers and limitations), etc. Wikipedia is a high-profile example of financial interests and plain old ill will can taint parts of the marketplace.

The low barrier to entry and the reduced risk of repercussion or litigation stemming from a bit of Wikipedia "adjustment" are great when that avenue serves as a means of encouraging real participation and information-sharing. Simultaneously, it makes it all too easy to engage in negative subterfuge and corrupt practices.

When I think too hard about the Wikipedia situation, its growth and potential financial impact on business entities, the motivation for those with financial clout to modify its content, etc., I have flashbacks to Marcuse.

Wikipedia is a perfect opportunity for people to provide value, share information and perspective, and to create a truly useful resource. It's also a great opportunity for those chasing bucks or with axes to grind to do their thing. I don't know where it ends, but I doubt it concludes with everyone marveling at Wikipedia or trusting it more (or as much) as any other site.

Carson

Get ready for plenty of paid and volunteer partisan Wiki editing as 2008 approaches, too.

I'm beginning to wonder if the free-for-all was only valuable so long as it stayed off the radar of commercial players and power brokers. Now that the cat is out of the bag, it's going to get uglier, I fear.

Carson

I'm not offended by "Merry Christmas," but I tend to use "Happy Holidays" or some other non-religious alternative. That has more to do with my own personal perspective on a host of issues than it does concern that someone might take offense to a "Christmas" utterance.

The one in three who are upset when "HH" pushes out "MC" need to find a new hobby and should stop worrying about the fictional War on Christmas.

How a more inclusive expression of friendliness could upset someone baffles me--unless they mistakenly see that language choice as a threat to their own belief structure.

Happy holidays, Michael!

Carson

Of course Digg stinks a little bit. How could it be otherwise? Why would anyone anticipate anything other than cliquishness and silliness? Digg is also valuable and informative, if you know how to approach it and enter it with an understanding of its weaknesses and the surrounding context.

When you reminded Gomes that some books are lousy, too, it was an understatement. Most books are lousy. Even most of the books by really, really bright people are lousy. Most television shows are lousy. Most magazines are lousy. Digg is lousy. The majority of peer-reviewed academic journals are lousy, too.

So, we have a choice. We can either give up and allow ourselves to wallow in our own (and only our own) little thoughts or we can accept the strong likelihood that most of what is produced is fairly rotten and work to develop a means to find needles of wisdom in the haystack.

Sometimes, that wisdom comes from WSJ writers. Sometimes it comes from members of a mouth-breathing fraternity. Sometimes you stumble upon it elsewhere.

I second Kristen's remarks...Congrats to all!

Deb and Kristen are getting their deserved props...

And self-nomination seems so uncouth...

So, I am going to nominate a new favorite... Tom Chandler's Copywriter Underground is rapidly becoming a favorite. I discovered it recently and now it's one of the first feeds I read every morning.

http://copywriterunderground.com/

CDB

I don't necessarily think PR and authenticity are mutually exclusive by nature--only in common execution. Rohit Bhargava, I think, does a pretty good job of outlining how it might be possible to capture at least some of the authenticity advantage without making the Edelman error.

PR practitioners may never be able to snag the full power of blogging as a WOM device, but they can capture enough of it to make it worthwhile.

Re: Firing Edelman... Makes sense to me. Wal-Mart really needs to consider firing everyone who has ever been involved in their online pursuits. Their actual commerce pages are less than attractive, their faux MySpace tanked, and now this. Maybe some outfits should just stick to brick and mortar?

CDB

I think that the "authenticity" factor is part of what makes blogging a powerful PR tool. The very act of PR, however, usually falls far short of "authentic."

I do think it's possible to use a blog for PR purposes successfully, but I don't think the Edelman Wal-Mart strategy is the way to go in the long run. Companies are going to have to find a way to be up front about who they are and why they are blogging if they want to avoid Edelman Excedrin headaches.

That may require abandoning the notion of securing "grassroots" appeal, and will surely make successful PR blogging tougher...but I do think it's possible.

Happy birthday, PT!

Great article. The background information was edifying, and I couldn't agree with your conclusion more. RSS might be a target for thieves, but that certainly does not make it responsible for the crimes. Blaming RSS isn't much different than blaming the victim of a car theft for driving a popular vehicle, in my estimation.