On 4/21/07, Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com wrote:
Slim Virgin Let's face it, it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies, don't even have to be able to spell. It's a lot to ask of that person that they should simply acquiesce and dutifully check their bios every day for the rest of their lives, in case some 10-year-old, or a malicious enemy, has added insults or libel that thousands of people might read before it's fixed, and which Google may continue to distribute anyway.
At the risk of being tedious and repetitive, I stronglyendorse the above view:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1882027,00.html
A Wikipedia biography page is an attractive nuisance and aweapon of asymmetric warfare.
I wish it weren't so, but that's how it works.
It doesn't have to. One of my first acts on Wikipedia, before I was an administrator and long before I knew much about policy, was to improve and eventually help to get rid of the biography article of a minor Usenet personage placed here by revenge trolls.
In those pre-Seigenthaler days there was no "Biography of living persons" policy and we hadn't really got to grips as a community with the damage we could cause to reputations. Now we're much better organized and more aware. There is more work to do, but attitudes have changed radically over the past couple of years, and I've no doubt that this trend will continue.