Some things the page should mention are that
- Wikipedia has had and no doubt continues to have many articles on individuals and corporations that were unfair to their subjects, to the point of being attack pages.
- Wikipedia's anonymous editing concept makes it an ideal venue for defamation, encouraging stalkers, jilted lovers, professional rivals and competitors to edit the articles of people they don't like.
- While there is every arrangement and policy investment designed to protect anonymous editors, there is no comparable policy investment to protect biography subjects: for example, someone complaining at a noticeboard about another editor's "conflict-of-interest" edits or "legal threat" gets a response within 5 minutes, while a subject writing to OTRS may have to wait weeks for a reply; and while a biography subject who threatens to sue an editor for libel is blocked from Wikipedia, someone who is already in a real-life legal dispute with them can edit their biography, the top Google link for their name, with impunity.
- Biography subjects who come to Wikipedia, alarmed that the no. 1 Google link for their name shows them in a worse light than they deserve, find themselves in a disorienting environment where the rules are stacked against them, and frequently end up hazed, mocked, and blocked from editing.
- While Wikipedia has much the same reach as a top newspaper, it is not accountable to the public in any significant way, and people victimised by it have no voice.
In such circumstances, a paid Wikipedia advocate might actually make sense; as would supervision by something like the press complaints commission.