[WikiEN-l] "should not be written by an interested party"

[Steve Bennett]

On 03/05/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher at student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
> And then you get people who'll insist that an article MUST remain the
> way it is simply because its subject doesn't want it to.  People who
> just want to send a big "FUCK YOU" to anyone who would dare --- dare!
> --- criticise a Wikipedia article.  Imagine if Seigenthaler had shown up
> and really *did* remove the defamatory sentence from his article, only
> to be reverted and blocked --- "don't edit your own article!  Vandal!"
>
> Moderation in all things.  Ask Jimmy Wales what it's like to have an
> inaccurate bio of yourself on Wikipedia.  Ask Chip Berlet what it's like
> to have most of your bio written by conspiracy nuts.  I've never been
> notable enough for an article and (God willing) never will be, but if I
> were, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with stepping in to defend
> my own bio from vandalism and the rantings of fuckwits.

And if instead of actually fixing the article directly, the injured
party simply left a message on the talk page, and possibly at village
pump or something too? No room for cries of vandal, and probably
someone would quickly investigate and fix it.

Steve