In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:58:23 AM Pacific Daylight Time, snowspinner@gmail.com writes:
I'll sidestep the specifics of Lanier beyond saying that the version of the article he objected to was crap, and at least two of his objections were absolutely spot-on. I have not evaluated beyond that, but certainly he was not wrong to object.>>
------------- I don't think anyone is saying he was wrong to object. But as independent editors, we don't have a simple way to determine that: A) he is the actual subject; and B) his word takes priority over cited sources. That's the real crux of the matter.
If that system is broken than we should be determing how to fix it. For example, user verification would be one way. Knol for example, allows a person to verify their own name, cross-related to the phone directory. So at the very least, you know that an author called "Sam Smith" actually matches a "Sam Smith" in the phone book, at a certain phone number. To prevent people from just using any number in the book, it *calls* you, and gives you a code that you have to then re-key into the system to verify that you are in fact, the person who was called and are in fact, the person who is now typing the response key. :)
There are still ways to beat that system, but it's better than nothing.
So that, would be one way, to allow subjects to verify themselves, and then "fix" their own records with a certain level of priority.
Will Johnson **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, no registration required and great graphics – check it out! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir= http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)