An intresting question, could one get a court order to stop wikipedia hosting an articile on you, if you could prove that the articiles created were consistently libelous? ( I know you couldn’t sue them, as writers on the web don’t count as publishers, but this might be a little different.)

To self-edit is really amusing, since the self-editor is writing under the (mistaken) impression that someone actually cares to pour over every detail of the subject’s life. (”Oh, my. He grew up in SoHo. I never know that. Wow.) That in itself in an act of narcissim. Excluding a few celebrities and government officials, I can’t think of anyone important enough to self-edit.

It would seem to be more honest for Wales to just edit himself (and for people to see that he, in fact, was the one editing), than for him to get some friend or employee to do it for him. If the former, people could assess the information in light of the potential self-interest; in the latter, people have little ability to assess it.

Eh, well, that’s the issue about self-editing, isn’t it? Many of us have inflated views about ourselves, and are quick to minimize the contributions other’s had in our success. We tend to view minor obstacles we’ve overcome in life as having been nearly insurmountable. I’m not sure I’ve met a person who can “objectively” apprise himself. Most of us are unduly down on ourselves, or up on ourselves. Anyhow, that someone would be compelled to edit a Wikipedia entry about himself might indicate some levels of narcissim.

You already rebutted this point when you mentioned self-interest. Go back and read Huis Clos (No Exit) again: the only way we can know ourselves is as reflected in other people. Jimmy Wales (and anyone else, for that matter) cannot know himself objectively.