In a message dated 4/22/2009 11:26:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, arromdee@rahul.net writes:
Someone who claims to be a person who isn't Newsweek-level famous, and corrects a fact about themselves that's noncontroversial, probably is them. Even if you doubt it's them, there are other factors which make it more likely; for instance, if the person is known to be on the Internet already. Or if he corrects the fact in some online location that Wikipedia doesn't accept as a source.>>
You are coming a little closer now Ken. But, anyone can "correct" a non controversial fact, without the necessity for identying as the subject. If the fact is non controversial, then for the most part, I don't even expect a source ! Imagine that. This is probably most true for the removal of material, but I've seen additions that I let pass just because I was like "well who cares about that anyway?"
IF the person is KNOWN to be on the internet, you stepped right into that one Ken. That's what I've been saying all along. If they are known to be on the internet, then you know how to validate well-enough that the subject is the speaker and the speaker is the owner of some internet identity. That's good enough for me. Some validation is just fine. No validation, and allowing a priveledge position to some speaker, is *not* fine.
We all can change articles. No one gets a pass simply by claiming to be the subject. If you want a pass, you are going to have to show me evidence that you are the subject. If you are the subject and don't want a pass, fine, go ahead, edit the hell out of your own article, as long as you stay within the process.
You want to step out of the process? Then you will need to show evidence that you get that priveledge. You don't get it by stamping your feet and claiming priority.
Will Johnson
************** Big savings on Dell XPS Laptops and Desktops! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433404x1201394533/aol?redir=http... eclick.net%2Fclk%3B214133109%3B36002181%3Bk)