Actually I don't think we have a problem with
people editing articles
even if they do have a conflict of interest. It's better if they
declare that conflict, of course. People editing articles about
*themselves* seems to cause the most problems though, because they
take changes so personally, and insist that they know themselves
better than any published source could...
Of course, we also see it going the other way. A person's article is
wrong, or concentrates too much on the trivial (e.g. Ian McKellan's
sexuality), or is insulting. Someone comes along and fixes it, and gets
reverted: "WP:AUTO! You vandal!"
And then you get people who'll insist that an article MUST remain the
way it is simply because its subject doesn't want it to. People who
just want to send a big "FUCK YOU" to anyone who would dare --- dare!
--- criticise a Wikipedia article. Imagine if Seigenthaler had shown up
and really *did* remove the defamatory sentence from his article, only
to be reverted and blocked --- "don't edit your own article! Vandal!"
Moderation in all things. Ask Jimmy Wales what it's like to have an
inaccurate bio of yourself on Wikipedia. Ask Chip Berlet what it's like
to have most of your bio written by conspiracy nuts. I've never been
notable enough for an article and (God willing) never will be, but if I
were, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with stepping in to defend
my own bio from vandalism and the rantings of fuckwits.
"What? I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.5.2/329 - Release Date: 2/05/2006