Sheldon Rampton wrote:
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but
without knowing what
you think was specifically misleading in my article, I'm not prepared
to respond to these charges.
Right, well, we could talk about that offlist if you really want, but
that wasn't really the point. The point was just that the entry about
you that exists right now is biased, and I think that one of the
reasons that it's biased is that people are reluctant to edit it.
I have no objection to people adding criticism of my
work there.
That's good to know, but again doesn't really address the point that I
was making, which is that in general people are going to be reluctant
to edit a biography of someone here, and moreso if it's
_autobiography_.
2.
UNVERIFIABLE INFORMATION
You are an expert on yourself, to be sure. So, who could possibly
challenge you on such statements as "At the age of three, his family
moved to Las Vegas, Nevada, where his father worked as a musician"?
And you see that as a problem?
Yes, as a potential problem in autobiographies of this sort. As Erik
said, we can certainly trust you on that. But we ought to set an
example for the more general case, I think.
Evidently he thought that I was important enough to
merit an article,
Yes, and of course I don't think anyone disagrees. I'm a strong
inclusionist as is well known, so obviously I think it's fine for
there to be an article about you.
long before we had ever communicated personally and
before I had even
heard of Wikipedia. I would not have created it myself, but since it
already existed, I think I'm entitled to edit it.
That's your prerogative, of course. I just think it's tacky.
My personal take on the question of "good
taste" in this context is
that it obliges me to be more careful to respect others' edits than
if I were not the topic of the article. I've tried to do that, but I
don't think that I (or anyone else) should feel obliged to refrain
completely from editing articles that mention them.
That's not an unreasonable position.
--Jimbo