I think Jimbo mentioned last month that there is a
problem with self-written biographies: other contributors
may be excessively reluctant to 'contradict' the person
who presumably knows himself best. This issue arose
over the Sheldon Rampton article, although it little
or no problem for the William Connelley article.
The other problem is alleged "vanity pages", like Easter
Bradford. We haven't come up with strict criteria on
how famous a person has to be, to merit an article.
Apparently the fame threshold interacts with the "self-
promotion" taboo in an undefined way.
As it stands, an article about a contributor is more
likely to survive if it's written by someone other than
the contributor. The reasoning being, if at least one
other person has heard of you, maybe you're important?
Sorry if this didn't make anything clearer other than
how incomplete the policy is on self-written and obscure
biographies.
Ed Poor