Jimmy-
PR Watch monitors deceptive and manipulative public relations firms, such as the creation of "front groups" -- organizations that purport to represent a popular public agenda, when in fact their message is tailored to serve the specific interests of a client whose sponsorship of the organization is hidden.
With some changes in wording, that paragraph would be reasonably neutral.
Ed Poor removed that line with the comment "(moved self-serving ... text to talk)". And of course since then, famously, you two have been at each others throats.
Ed and Sheldon come from completely different political persuasions, and both are strongly convinced that they are correct. That is more than enough to explain their difficulties (see also the similar difficulties with William Connelly), just as your own near-head-explosion is enough to explain the following paragraph:
You're well-liked around here. I like you. But in my local newspaper, I read an editorial you wrote (an excerpt from _Weapons of Mass Deception_, I believe) that almost made my head explode. :-) I thought it wasn't just mistaken, but deeply misleading. And I think that your posture in that piece as some kind of neutral arbiter exposing PR spin was absurd -- the piece itself was a masterpiece of spin.
And yet the article reads like pure hagiography.
So add the criticisms you have, I don't see a problem with that. As a matter of fact, I find it less courteous to bring these criticisms up on the list, from your position as benevolent dictator, than to simply edit the article. [And please let's not get off-topic on this issue, I know you have to rant sometimes, but if you want to discuss this, it should be done privately.]
And I think that most people will naturally, and rightly, refrain from adding criticism of your work there, _as a matter of personal courtesy_, because you edit it yourself, and you are known and liked here.
Actually, the main problem would be the lack of published material that directly criticizes Sheldon's work, as attributions of the type "some critics feel .." are rightly frowned upon. This has little to do with whether he edits the article or someone else uses an author biography as a source.
You are an expert on yourself, to be sure. So, who could possibly challenge you on such statements as "At the age of three, his family moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, where his father worked as a musician"?
Sheldon has a reputation to lose. As such, we should extend some trust to him when it comes to non-controversial statements of fact about himself. After all, that's what any biographer would do as well.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work, not a tool for our own self-promotion. I can easily envision a mocking criticism of us as a non-serious work if we all start writing entries about ourselves. "Of the 1,234 page-length biographies in wikipedia, fully 10% of them are of Wikipedia contributors writing about themselves." Ick.
The best rule, in my opinion, is to only allow contributors to make additions/modifications, not to start articles about themselves.
It would be dangerous if someone who is directly opposed to Sheldon's work, such as Ed, could write all the negative things he wants, while Sheldon had no way to directly defend himself. To be sure, it is difficult to write in a balanced fashion about oneself, but is it more difficult than to write balanced about issues like abortion, global warming or pedophilia? As a matter of fact, the conflict of interest is so obvious here that it would be difficult for someone writing about themselves to defend anything which is remotely considered POV, as the disputed paragraph from Sheldon's bio demonstrates. In other words, it would be much easier for someone else to write a hagiography about Sheldon than for himself.
Starting articles about oneself is another matter, because of the whole importance/relevance issue. Obviously, many people would like to have an encyclopedia article about themselves. I seem to recall a rather long debate about a certain surrealist artist on that matter. But Sheldon clearly deserves an article, and I see no reason why he shouldn't contribute to it.
Regards,
Erik