Nevertheless, as you point out, there are mechanisms for correcting both factual errors (including vandalism) and bias (such as Mandel claims) in one's bio page. The Talk page would be good for that.
In addition, she surely knows people who are sufficiently unrelated (not family) who could make corrections and additions on her behalf, as long as the changes meet the guidelines for citations, NPOV, etc.
“In addition, she surely knows people who are sufficiently unrelated (not family) who could make corrections and additions on her behalf, as long as the changes meet the guidelines for citations, NPOV, etc.”
I don’t know if that’s within the rules or not. She’d be safer going through the talk page.
Either way, though, the key would be, as you point out, to adhere to the general standards for encyclopedic material.
There are snowflakes on the right as well as the left. I can’t shake the suspicion that her real problem with the article is that it’s not unalloyed adoration. Even her Post piece doesn’t identify any specific issues in her bio. Compare it to the way she identifies specific issues about Israel-Palestine coverage.