Further, unlike Bell Pottinger’s Tim Bell and his associates, I will be both overt and transparent in my efforts. I cannot speak for others, but that is a risk that Tim Bell chooses to take if he considers covert publicity to be a reasonable tactic; support for use of anonymous accounts to publish extracts will fall away sharply if it is seen to be unfair, and that can only happen if Tim Bell embraces transparency.

Thanks for your interest in the project. Judging by today’s indications, Tim Bell plans to tough it out, so shortly I expect we will move on to proof on concept on the Very Big Stick, before speaking quietly to major PR bodies and players in the hopes that their positive response to transparency in Wikipedia edits this will echo down through the ranks.

I’ve not said whether I agree with the tactic or not – because I’m not entirely sure myself. I’m not entirely sure if the aim is to change Tim’s mind, to show others that he cannot shape public perception, or to create a media spectacle where Tim starts criticising others for exactly the same techniques that he’s been defending. Perhaps it’s all three.

But I think it’s interesting – and that’s why I’m posting about it. I’ve written before about SEO as a public service, and I think this raises the same question: is it justified to seek to make search engine results more reflective of the evidence on a particular issue, person or organisation? Put another way, if you thought someone had edited a Wikipedia entry to promote a particular cause or point of view, would you seek to correct it? Is that what Tim Ireland is doing here, but on the level of search results?

Wait, his campaign plans to attempt to manipulate Google’s results? Is this any better than what the PR is company is doing in the first place? Do you think it’s different because you agree with his cause, Paul?