Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
It doesn't prevent them editing such articles. It even gives them tips on how to handle it properly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Editors_who_may_...
No sane Wikipedia newcomer is going to read that section and think they are permitted to fix their own article about themselves. If you squint at that section long enough, you might realize that it doesn't in fact prohibit editing where there is a conflict of interest, but this is a very non- obvious reading that is not what anyone's going to think of when the first thing the article says is that a conflict of interest is strongly discouraged. A newcomer simply will not have the sophistication to understand that "discouraged" actually means "encouraged in some cases".
Allowing people to fix errors in articles about themselves won't work unless you make it *utterly clear* that they can do so. Having an article which sounds like it says they cannot, but which upon very careful examination reveals that it is after all allowed, will not let them know.
I very much agree. The fact that the Connflict of Interest page has drawn the seemingly contrary interpretations that have appeared on this thread shows that it certainly lacks clarity. I'm inclined to believe that having a section in a biography article where the subject would be free to express the "truth" about himself would be very popular with both subjects and readers. Perhaps it could be done in some kind of protected template. It would make complaint calls easier to handle if you could tell the complainers where they can set the record straight without facing a major battle. Wiki or not, we don't really need for everyone to be able to edit absolutely everything. The readers could feel that what is said there is really what the subject believes. Subjects might even be inclined to provide free photographs of themselves.
This could not happen without a few rules, but these do not need to be elaborate.
Ec