[WikiEN-l] Getting hammered in a tv interview is not fun

[Ray Saintonge]

Sheldon Rampton wrote:

>Stan Shebs wrote:
>  
>
>>Isn't it interesting how nobody ever complains
>>about inaccuracies in articles other than the ones about themselves?
>>Egos, geez...
>>    
>>
>Actually, people *do* complain about inaccuracies in other types of  
>articles. Moreover, there are good reasons other than ego for people  
>to notice the inaccuracies in articles about themselves. For one  
>thing, we all know our own biographies in a lot more detail than  
>other people. I'm willing to bet that no one on WikiEN-l other than  
>myself knows off the top of their head what city I was born in or my  
>date of birth. If someone other than myself were to read that I was  
>born in 1961 in Toledo, Ohio, it's unlikely that they'd know it was  
>incorrect, whereas I'd notice the error immediately.
>
It's conceivable that some subjects would be quite pleased with such 
misinformation about themselves.  It would make them more difficult to 
track down, and offer some measure of protection for their privacy.

>In any case, the people who complain about inaccuracies in articles  
>are doing Wikipedia a favor, not a disservice. Complaints help  
>Wikipedia learn about errors and improve. It may be momentarily  
>embarrassing for Jimbo to have an error pointed out to him during a  
>TV interview, but that's a small price to pay for useful feedback.
>
I must agree.  The publicity from these events may not be as bad as some 
want to believe.  Perhaps the public message should stress that we 
welcome such comments, because we fix them as soon as possible.  Between 
the time that a problem is mentioned on TV or radio, and the time that 
the average user tries to look up the problem it will probably be 
fixed.  That just leaves the user wondering what the person is 
complaining about.  The average reader may not yet understand how the 
article history works.

It seems to me that the average citizen becomes most concerned when 
complaints about obvious problems in society encounter denials from 
those in a position to fix the problems.

>Slim Virgin wrote:
>  
>
>>The other solution is to stop publishing biographies of living
>>persons, or at least to offer subjects deletion on request.
>>
>>By hosting living bios, and by inviting anyone in the world to edit
>>them, we're encouraging bad editing in a quantity we have no hope of
>>controlling.
>>    
>>
>Actually, hosting living bios probably helps improve fact-checking  
>and accuracy more than publishing other types of articles. If there's  
>an error in an article about some dead guy, he's NOT going to point  
>out the error. Without the feedback from live people, Wikipedia would  
>know less than it knows now about the accuracy of its articles and  
>the validity of its editorial policies.
>
This would seem to support the view that article subjects should have 
the right to publicly comment on the article about them, and even to 
have their own words clearly identified.  The implied message that comes 
out of this is. "We listen."

As Wikipedians we have some grasp about what it means to be 
collaborative.  We can't assume that the public does.  The public's 
respect for authority is stronger than many Wikipedians want to 
believe.  That's been drummed into them throughout the course of their 
upbringing.  We have a long time to wait before they realize that their 
opinion matters.

Ec