Comments on: The Biographies of Living People problem http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080415/the-biographies-of-living-people-problem/ It's only a website... it's only a website... Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:36:38 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: Judyth Vary Baker http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080415/the-biographies-of-living-people-problem/#comment-2048 Judyth Vary Baker Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:57:58 +0000 http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20080415/the-biographies-of-living-people-problem/#comment-2048 This article is well-written and explains exactly why my friend Allan Mattsson and I were so upset when we removed some libelous materials and added references, only to have "shutterbun" who has regularly libelled me and those like me on newsgroups, revert and then report me and Allan as bad-tempered and threatening, etc. The upshot was that my biography, which was a good source for many who sought information about Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy conspiracy issue, to be removed after some five years on Wikipedia, during which half that time the article (written by a detratctor) had been rife with inaccuracies and slanderous statements 9which still exist on these writers' websites). My friend Allan was editing on many subjects, and I helped him with English, but it made no difference--he was told not to rely on me for help with English because that meant we 'shared' his account, which was never the case...if he did not comply, he would be kicked off as an editor. So even though Allan is world traveled and was doing some fine editing as truehistoryjvba, he resigned. Thsi article clearly states the difficulties those who find themselves libelled have to edit their own biography (not allowed!) when others who actively libel them elsewhere ARE allowed to revert to former statements. it is too late for me: no matter how many books and movies and documentaries will be made concerning my biography, if it shows up on Wikipedia again, you can be sure it will once again be written by my detractors, whose own books, movies, etc. will be less popular if mine become better known, and any attempts by me or Allan or anyone else to correct slander and libel will only result in our being kicked out and the biography removed. Perhaps a solution would be for Wikipedia to send a copy of the biography to the subject, who can then express approval and suggest corrections. the person writing the biography must supply a means to contact the living subject to obtain their approval. One must make sure the contact information really does reach the subject of the biography. If changes are made to the biography after its approval, once again the subject should be notified. Any corrections made by the subject of the biography could be in bold face, and their references should be acceptable (let the reader decide if the references are sufficient to back the correction or addition made by the subject). In this way, living biographies can be corrected where they are in error or being biased deliberately, but the reader can ascertain the corrections (which should also include the date). I believe corrections should be limited to a paragraph or so, with footnote comments -- and the same should apply to any editors' changes. In this way, these biographies can inform the public and Wikipedia could regain some of its presently tarnished reputation due to vandalism, libel, and reverting of the desperate attempts made by us who have been slandered/libelled to correct the damage done. Judyth Baker This article is well-written and explains exactly why my friend Allan Mattsson and I were so upset when we removed some libelous materials and added references, only to have “shutterbun” who has regularly libelled me and those like me on newsgroups, revert and then report me and Allan as bad-tempered and threatening, etc. The upshot was that my biography, which was a good source for many who sought information about Lee Harvey Oswald and the Kennedy conspiracy issue, to be removed after some five years on Wikipedia, during which half that time the article (written by a detratctor) had been rife with inaccuracies and slanderous statements 9which still exist on these writers’ websites). My friend Allan was editing on many subjects, and I helped him with English, but it made no difference–he was told not to rely on me for help with English because that meant we ’shared’ his account, which was never the case…if he did not comply, he would be kicked off as an editor. So even though Allan is world traveled and was doing some fine editing as truehistoryjvba, he resigned.

Thsi article clearly states the difficulties those who find themselves libelled have to edit their own biography (not allowed!) when others who actively libel them elsewhere ARE allowed to revert to former statements.

it is too late for me: no matter how many books and movies and documentaries will be made concerning my biography, if it shows up on Wikipedia again, you can be sure it will once again be written by my detractors, whose own books, movies, etc. will be less popular if mine become better known, and any attempts by me or Allan or anyone else to correct slander and libel will only result in our being kicked out and the biography removed.

Perhaps a solution would be for Wikipedia to send a copy of the biography to the subject, who can then express approval and suggest corrections. the person writing the biography must supply a means to contact the living subject to obtain their approval. One must make sure the contact information really does reach the subject of the biography.

If changes are made to the biography after its approval, once again the subject should be notified. Any corrections made by the subject of the biography could be in bold face, and their references should be acceptable (let the reader decide if the references are sufficient to back the correction or addition made by the subject). In this way, living biographies can be corrected where they are in error or being biased deliberately, but the reader can ascertain the corrections (which should also include the date). I believe corrections should be limited to a paragraph or so, with footnote comments — and the same should apply to any editors’ changes. In this way, these biographies can inform the public and Wikipedia could regain some of its presently tarnished reputation due to vandalism, libel, and reverting of the desperate attempts made by us who have been slandered/libelled to correct the damage done.

Judyth Baker

]]>