The intent of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is noble. But it ignores the real problem. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability have morphed into a dreadful guiding principle that sanctions inaccurate facts and avoids accountability. The Contacting the subjects of biographies section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is bad policy because it sanctions erroneous data, stunts intellectual curiosity, and rewards laziness. Contacting the subjects of biographies There is no obligation to contact the subject of a biography to ask permission to write it, or to inform the subject that one is being written. (100% agreement) If contact with a subject is made, care must be taken not to reproduce details offered by the subject if these details have not been published elsewhere. (100% agreement if primary sources are included.) For example, if the New York Times says that John Doe was born in 1955, but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965, the Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. (Complete disagreement). To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original research. (100% disagreement. A person’s date of birth is not original research. DOB is a basic fact of society. It is verified daily by a wide spectrum of organizations.) If the subject wants to correct the public record, he should do so by writing to the newspaper that made the mistake or to another credible publication. The Wikipedia article should then be changed to reflect any published correction or published letter to the editor. (100% disagreement. Filtering out accurate information is totally unacceptable. Wikipedia policy [NPOV, Original research, Verifiability] should never be interpreted in a way that makes Wikipedia 100% depend on another media outlet being ethical or perfect.) There are also legal concerns about adding details that have come directly from the subject. How can you be completely sure who you are talking to? What if he maliciously tells you something false and defamatory in order to cause trouble for Wikipedia? Could you afterwards prove that you had spoken to him, and that he had been the source of the claims you added to his article? (100% disagreement. This is intellectually dishonest. Wikipedia is shifting accountability to other media outlets. This is a POV that Wikipedia has created from thin air. It ignores the fact that most other organizations collect information over the Internet. Banking, college/university applications, bookstores, retail shopping/swapping… are done on line everyday.) Newspapers know how to deal with this kind of situation, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not have the resources to conduct this kind of original research, and if mishandled, it could lead to serious consequences for Wikipedia and for the subject of the biography. (100% disagree. Maybe this was true in the beginning, but is not true now. Wikipedia has many editors that know how to deal with these situations. They are told NOT to address the problem.) Honest discussion. Fact-checking. Mandatory quality improvement practices. These are the solutions. Regards, Sydney Poore