On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 01:54:07 -0800, you wrote:
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 see a problem with an open and honest request for factual correction. We have always encouraged living people to engage with the community in keeping their biographies factually accurate - just not by actually editing them. Engage on the talk page, go to the Office, whatever. And if they point out an error which can be verified as an error, that's good. And if they dislike the fact that verifiable but unflattering information is in there, maybe they should have thought about that before they did whatever they did :-)
Rambling aside: my friend David Silsoe was lead counsel for the proposers in a number of highly acrimonious planning inquiries, including Sizewell B, Hinkley Point C, Heathrow Terminal 4 and Terminal 5. And despite that, I could not find anybody who had a bad word to say about him. Even his opponents liked him. A lot of public figures fail to pull off that particular feat, and the problem is theirs not ours. As long as we stick to WP:V and WP:RS and of course "do no harm" we won't go far wrong, I think. Guy (JzG)