[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's destiny - Harry Reid

Sue Anne Reed sreed1234 at yahoo.com
Wed Feb 22 09:54:07 UTC 2006

I really don't know what to think about the Brian Peppers article, so 
I'm not going to comment on that one.

However, I do think the Harry Reid issue raises an interesting question. 
If Wikipedia is going to be a trusted source of information, there seems 
to me that there is a need for us to vet "living people" articles in a 
way that allows those people to respond to criticisms. We criticized 
Congressional staffers who "anonymously" edited articles both of the 
people that they were working for and of the opposition. In this 
instance, with Harry Reid's staff, they are making a very open request 
to Jimbo and the others in WP:OFFICE to identify things that they 
disagree with in the article about Reid.

I don't know how Wikipedia is going to handle this as it continues to 
become a more widely read source of information. People, especially 
politicians, are going to want to be able to have a voice in that 
information. How do we balance that with NPOV? On the Abramoff / Reid 
situation, I don't think you'll be able to reach NPOV. Folks on the 
right and possibly centrists are going to point to certain facts and say 
that it shows Reid is connected to the lobbying scandal and that he's a 
hypocrite for saying he's not. Folks on the left are going to call it a 
giant smear campaign by the right to try and downplay their culpability. 
Has any news outlet reached consensus on this one?

Sue Anne
sreed1234 at yahoo.com

More information about the WikiEN-l mailing list