[WikiEN-l] Jimmy Wales should reconsider

[MacGyverMagic/Mgm]

On 4/20/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 4/20/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
> > One of Wikipedia's greatest strengths is its timeliness. Protecting
> > articles just so the subject doesn't feel the need to constantly
> > monitor them is a bad precedent to set.
>
> I've always felt this was Brandt's strongest argument. Let's face it,
> it's kind of odd that we assume the right to expose a living person to
> the whims of anyone of any age anywhere in the world, people who don't
> have to use their real names, don't have to understand the policies,
> don't even have to be able to spell. It's a lot to ask of that person
> that they should simply acquiesce and dutifully check their bios every
> day for the rest of their lives, in case some 10-year-old, or a
> malicious enemy, has added insults or libel that thousands of people
> might read before it's fixed, and which Google may continue to
> distribute anyway.
>
> If that person doesn't get invited for a job interview because the
> human resources officer didn't like the sound of "John Doe became
> known locally in 1987 for having slept with three of his neighbors'
> wives on the same day," when she checked him out on Wikipedia minutes
> before the vandalism was reverted, well, he'll have to establish that
> was the reason he didn't get an interview; then he'll have to find the
> money to sue the Foundation; then he'll have to convince a court that
> the Foundation is a publisher; and, perhaps most awkwardly, he'll have
> to hope no evidence emerges that he really did sleep with three
> neighbors' wives on the same day, even though it had no bearing
> whatsoever on the job he ended up not getting because someone added it
> to Wikipedia.
>
> All in all, we ask a lot.
>
> Sarah


All we ask for is for people to be critical of what they read and don't just
take it for granted.