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

[geni]

On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed <sreed1234 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Most people would just use the talk page.

> 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
> [[User:Sreed1234]]
> sreed1234 at yahoo.com

What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?


--
geni