Steve Bennett-4 wrote:
And if instead of actually fixing the article directly, the injured
party simply left a message on the talk page, and possibly at village
pump or something too? No room for cries of vandal, and probably
someone would quickly investigate and fix it.
You're assuming that someone entirely unfamiliar with Wikipedia should, when
alerted to an unsympathetic and possibly damaging article about them, be
able to understand when the mantra "anybody can edit" suddenly becomes
invalid, and furthermore deduce the alternate avenues of change which they
should pursue, all the while leaving a version of their article on display
which might well be somewhat distressing to them?
We should be more careful not to bite newbies, especially when we
have...however inadvertent it might have been, and I'm AGFing here like
crazy...caused them distress before they even arrive here. We do not exactly
improve our general reputation by fostering an atmosphere which potentially
allows people to insert damaging and downright mean disinformation into a
biographical article, lie in wait for the subject should they turn up, and
add insult to injury by castigating their well-meaning if naive efforts to
correct the situation.
View this message in context:
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at Nabble.com