You wrote:

Right, well, we could talk about that offlist if you really want,

OK, whatever, but if you don't want to talk about it here, maybe you shouldn't have brought it up here.

but that wasn't really the point. The point was just that the entry about you that exists right now is biased, and I think that one of the reasons that it's biased is that people are reluctant to edit it.

If you think the article that exists right now is biased, CHANGE IT! I've said that several times now. If you don't, I have to assume that whatever bias you claim to perceive isn't really that much of a problem for you.

And what's your basis for claiming that people are "reluctant to edit it"? Ed Poor hasn't been reluctant, nor have several other people.

The only person here who seems to think the article is biased is you, for reasons that you don't want to discuss on this list. Based on what you've stated so far, it is impossible for anyone to judge whether the real problem is MY bias, the ARTICLE's bias, or YOUR bias. Personally, I vote for the conclusion that the problem is YOUR bias. But maybe that's just me. ;-)

In general people are going to be reluctant to edit a biography of someone here, and more so if it's _autobiography_.

Of course, my bio isn't really an "autobiography." It's not written in the first person, and it actually has multiple authors. It's no more an "autobiography" than the Rev. Moon article is a "biography of Moon written by a member of the Unification Church." There's also nothing in the text of the article itself that would inhibit anyone from editing it. I suppose you might fantasize that someone would review its history, see my name there and get all inhibited, but that's a fairly fanciful speculation. (Wikipedians don't usually begin their editing by reviewing an article's history; at least, I know I don't.) And actually, it's equally plausible that seeing my name in the history would motivate people to edit it MORE aggressively, rather than less so. Try this thought experiment: If I had edited the article under an anonymous pseudonym instead of my own name, would Ed Poor have used the term "self-serving" to describe the paragraph he removed? I think his edit demonstrates that editing under my own name actually INCREASED the amount of critical scrutiny the article has received.

Your argument reminds me of something I used to hear from one of my feminist friends back in the 1980s. I knew a woman who complained that at meetings of a political group to which she belonged, men tended to dominate because they didn't hesitate to speak up, whereas women were shy about expressing themselves in front of a group. She thought that this phenomenon constituted some kind of male oppression. I pointed out to her that men were under no obligation to stifle themselves just because some women lacked the gumption to speak up. If women really are more shy in public than men (which may have been true at the time, but is probably less true now), the solution isn't for men to stifle themselves but for women to find their own voices.

Similarly, the solution to the problem you're posing isn't for me to stifle myself but for others to overcome their reluctance to edit boldly -- assuming that such reluctance even exists, which you haven't demonstrated.