[leephillips]

I know. But Wikipedia's rules about authority only have bearing within their universe, and no bearing upon what is actually authoritative. Are you really saying that you are "not really" an authority about what you had for breakfast because Wikipedia wouldn't allow you to claim to be one?

[PhasmaFelis]

IIRC, one of the first public Wikipedia "scandals" involved a guy who was irate because his Wikipedia entry was wrong and he was told he wasn't allowed to edit it. Cue much hemming and hawing.

Only the "wrong" was that it included "director" among a long list of accomplishments, on account of he had directed a film. The guy's beef was that he didn't like the film and didn't want to be noted for it, and he demanded sole authority over his own historical record.

Sometimes there are good reasons to not let people edit their own articles. Sometimes there aren't. But you need some sort of coherent policy.

[stonemetal]

Why would you be one? Maybe you don't know the difference between cilantro and parsley, but your omelet contained one of them. That mystery sausage in the back of your fridge that you ate and claimed was chorizo? Maybe the wait staff didn't like you so there was abnormally large amount of spit in your breakfast. Being Authoritative on your breakfast should only apply if you actually know what you ate, not just think you do.

[nollidge]

Yes, that is absolutely what I'm saying. Obviously not because it's Wikipedia's policy, but because all information is provisional. All information should be regarded with varying levels of confidence never approaching 100%.

If you ask about my breakfast, I could be lying to you or recall yesterday's breakfast instead of today's or whatever.