[WikiEN-l] "should not be written by an interested party"
stevage at gmail.com
Wed May 3 06:09:19 UTC 2006
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.
More information about the WikiEN-l