[WikiEN-l] People editing their own Wikipedia articles.

[Joseph Reagle]

On Thursday 10 November 2005 19:10, Matt Brown wrote:
> Daniel Brandt is far from the first subject of a Wikipedia article to come
> along, find the article, and try to 'fix' it, edit it, delete it, or even
> boost themselves on it. And he won't be the last. As Wikipedia becomes 
more
> and more in the public eye, and as well-known people become more and more
> familiar with online things, we'll see it quite often.

Interestingly, I had just written about this with respect to Mike Godwin and 
his Law.

http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/godwins-law?showcomments=yes
2005 Nov 14 | Godwin's Law
...
In any case, the Wikipedia experience that Godwin wished to share was about 
the article on Godwin's Law. While modifying the article to more accurately 
reflect the history of the meme, some other editors objected. The trinity 
of Wikipedia policies is that editors should be neutral in their 
presentation of claims, not include original -- and potentially crackpot -- 
research, and provide citations such that any such claim can be verified by 
others. So, this story brings us to the interesting question of how does 
the primary source, such as Godwin, edit a related article? While 
recognizing Godwin's authority, one might also then challenge his 
neutrality and reporting of primary claims. It is not uncommon for 
contributors to create "vanity" edits (pages or links) that are rebuffed 
with these policies when the edit is not of encyclopedic merit. But what of 
when the edit is of merit? Are the most qualified primary sources 
disqualified from editing the Wikipedia article? Need a primary source 
published her first person claim elsewhere before it can bear upon the 
Wikipedia article?