Christopher Larberg wrote:
I don't see what's so bad about having subjects of articles edit their own articles. They may be able to add information unobtainable elsewhere (after all, you can't get a much better source than the subject matter his/herself).
One problem with this, one which I have faced myself, is that information about myself which is unobtainable elsewhere is also unverifiable and therefore can't be added. Therefore, even when it is at it's best (with unverifiable speculation removed), it's still a very very strange representation of who I am. (Though it has gotten better over time as I have been more open with reporters about myself so that there's more verifiable information out there.)
I think people should generally be discouraged from editing articles about themselves, even though I have on occassion done it myself. It is a very very stressful thing to do for a person of goodwill. I've no interest in removing criticism of me or whatever, but still for the most part I prefer to just NOT READ the article about me.
But reporters are always asking me about stuff they read in that article, and if it's some totally made up original research (which happens unfortunately often), I have to admit that, well, uh, the Wikipedia article about me is just plain -wrong-. And that's embarassing too. :-)
--Jimbo