Jimmy-
> PR Watch monitors deceptive and manipulative
public relations firms,
> such as the creation of "front groups" -- organizations that purport
> to represent a popular public agenda, when in fact their message is
> tailored to serve the specific interests of a client whose sponsorship
> of the organization is hidden.
With some changes in wording, that paragraph would be reasonably neutral.
Ed Poor removed that line with the comment
"(moved self-serving ...
text to talk)". And of course since then, famously, you two have been
at each others throats.
Ed and Sheldon come from completely different political persuasions, and
both are strongly convinced that they are correct. That is more than
enough to explain their difficulties (see also the similar difficulties
with William Connelly), just as your own near-head-explosion is enough to
explain the following paragraph:
You're well-liked around here. I like you. But
in my local
newspaper, I read an editorial you wrote (an excerpt from _Weapons of
Mass Deception_, I believe) that almost made my head explode. :-) I
thought it wasn't just mistaken, but deeply misleading. And I think
that your posture in that piece as some kind of neutral arbiter
exposing PR spin was absurd -- the piece itself was a masterpiece of
spin.
And yet the article reads like pure hagiography.
So add the criticisms you have, I don't see a problem with that. As a
matter of fact, I find it less courteous to bring these criticisms up on
the list, from your position as benevolent dictator, than to simply edit
the article. [And please let's not get off-topic on this issue, I know you
have to rant sometimes, but if you want to discuss this, it should be done
privately.]
And I think that most people will naturally,
and rightly, refrain from adding criticism of your work there, _as a
matter of personal courtesy_, because you edit it yourself, and you
are known and liked here.
Actually, the main problem would be the lack of published material that
directly criticizes Sheldon's work, as attributions of the type "some
critics feel .." are rightly frowned upon. This has little to do with
whether he edits the article or someone else uses an author biography as a
source.
You are an expert on yourself, to be sure. So, who
could possibly
challenge you on such statements as "At the age of three, his family
moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, where his father worked as a musician"?
Sheldon has a reputation to lose. As such, we should extend some trust to
him when it comes to non-controversial statements of fact about himself.
After all, that's what any biographer would do as well.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a reference work, not a
tool for our own
self-promotion. I can easily envision a mocking criticism of us as a
non-serious work if we all start writing entries about ourselves. "Of
the 1,234 page-length biographies in wikipedia, fully 10% of them are
of Wikipedia contributors writing about themselves." Ick.
The best rule, in my opinion, is to only allow contributors to make
additions/modifications, not to start articles about themselves.
It would be dangerous if someone who is directly opposed to Sheldon's
work, such as Ed, could write all the negative things he wants, while
Sheldon had no way to directly defend himself. To be sure, it is difficult
to write in a balanced fashion about oneself, but is it more difficult
than to write balanced about issues like abortion, global warming or
pedophilia? As a matter of fact, the conflict of interest is so obvious
here that it would be difficult for someone writing about themselves to
defend anything which is remotely considered POV, as the disputed
paragraph from Sheldon's bio demonstrates. In other words, it would be
much easier for someone else to write a hagiography about Sheldon than for
himself.
Starting articles about oneself is another matter, because of the whole
importance/relevance issue. Obviously, many people would like to have an
encyclopedia article about themselves. I seem to recall a rather long
debate about a certain surrealist artist on that matter. But Sheldon
clearly deserves an article, and I see no reason why he shouldn't
contribute to it.
Regards,
Erik