I get it and agree with what you’re saying.

I would say, though, that as a small firm going up against the big agencies, I have to deal all the time with the client perception that somehow because of the major agency’s sheer size, it will have the best resources to deal with whatever issue comes up.

So it’s nice to be able to show a client or prospect B-M’s Wikipedia page — so they know that social media isn’t for sissies, and that if someone from B-M tells them otherwise, they know the person is probably full of it.

At the same time, while many PR firms have been involved with controversial clients over the years, I’m not sure how having these clients written up on wikipedia relates to any PR firm’s proclaimed mastery of web 2.0?

I’m a fan of you and your blog, so don’t take this the wrong way. While it’s easy to suggest that the big firms be more humble and that they’ve caused their own image problems, I’d suggest that all PR firms big and small should be looking at wikipedia entries like these and saying “there but for the grace of God go I.”