On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed <sreed1234(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
I really don't know what to think about the Brian
Peppers article, so
I'm not going to comment on that one.
However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question.
If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems
to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a
way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized
Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the
people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this
instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request
to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they
disagree with in the article about Reid.
Most people would just use the talk page.
I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this
as it continues to
become a more widely read source of information. People, especially
politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that
information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid
situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the
right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say
that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a
hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a
giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability.
Has any news outlet reached consensus on this one?
What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?