On Thursday 10 November 2005 19:10, Matt Brown wrote:
Daniel Brandt is far from the first subject of a Wikipedia article to come along, find the article, and try to 'fix' it, edit it, delete it, or even boost themselves on it. And he won't be the last. As Wikipedia becomes
more
and more in the public eye, and as well-known people become more and more familiar with online things, we'll see it quite often.
Interestingly, I had just written about this with respect to Mike Godwin and his Law.
http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/culture/wikipedia/godwins-law?showcomments=yes 2005 Nov 14 | Godwin's Law ... In any case, the Wikipedia experience that Godwin wished to share was about the article on Godwin's Law. While modifying the article to more accurately reflect the history of the meme, some other editors objected. The trinity of Wikipedia policies is that editors should be neutral in their presentation of claims, not include original -- and potentially crackpot -- research, and provide citations such that any such claim can be verified by others. So, this story brings us to the interesting question of how does the primary source, such as Godwin, edit a related article? While recognizing Godwin's authority, one might also then challenge his neutrality and reporting of primary claims. It is not uncommon for contributors to create "vanity" edits (pages or links) that are rebuffed with these policies when the edit is not of encyclopedic merit. But what of when the edit is of merit? Are the most qualified primary sources disqualified from editing the Wikipedia article? Need a primary source published her first person claim elsewhere before it can bear upon the Wikipedia article?