[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[Slim Virgin]

On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its timeliness. Protecting
> articles just so the subject doesn't feel the need to constantly
> monitor them is a bad precedent to set.

I've always felt this was Brandt's strongest argument. Let's face it,
it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to
the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't
have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies,
don't even have to be able to spell. It's a lot to ask of that person
that they should simply acquiesce and dutifully check their bios every
day for the rest of their lives, in case some 10-year-old, or a
malicious enemy, has added insults or libel that thousands of people
might read before it's fixed, and which Google may continue to
distribute anyway.

If that person doesn't get invited for a job interview because the
human resources officer didn't like the sound of "John Doe became
known locally in 1987 for having slept with three of his neighbors'
wives on the same day," when she checked him out on Wikipedia minutes
before the vandalism was reverted, well, he'll have to establish that
was the reason he didn't get an interview; then he'll have to find the
money to sue the Foundation; then he'll have to convince a court that
the Foundation is a publisher; and, perhaps most awkwardly, he'll have
to hope no evidence emerges that he really did sleep with three
neighbors' wives on the same day, even though it had no bearing
whatsoever on the job he ended up not getting because someone added it
to Wikipedia.

All in all, we ask a lot.

Sarah