On 2/22/06, Sue Anne Reed sreed1234@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@yahoo.com
What about those of use who have never herd of Harry Reid?
-- geni