Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Difference between revisions
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) + links to other policy |
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) Gigs, how about this? |
||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
*'''Example''': A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but ''The New York Times'' publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing the ''New York Times'' as the source. |
*'''Example''': A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but ''The New York Times'' publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing the ''New York Times'' as the source. |
||
=== |
===Privacy of personal information and using primary sources=== |
||
| ⚫ | |||
Do ''not'' use primary sources, such as public records that include personal details, unless a reliable secondary source has already published the information; see [[#Misuse of primary sources|above]]. |
|||
| ⚫ | With [[identity theft]] on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or where the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See [[#Misuse of primary sources|above]] regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects. |
||
===People who are relatively unknown=== |
===People who are relatively unknown=== |
||
| Line 88: | Line 89: | ||
{{shortcut|WP:BLPNAME}} |
{{shortcut|WP:BLPNAME}} |
||
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability. |
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability. |
||
===Privacy of personal information=== |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | With [[identity theft]] on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or where the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. |
||
===Restraining orders=== |
===Restraining orders=== |
||
Revision as of 02:21, 7 April 2010
 |
 | This page in a nutshell: Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. |
 | If you are concerned about the accuracy or appropriateness of biographical material on Wikipedia, report problems at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. For articles about yourself, please see "Dealing with articles about yourself" below. |
Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[1] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to our three core content policies:
- Neutral point of view (NPOV)
- Verifiability (V)
- No original research (NOR)
We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2]
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.
Writing style
Tone
BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections.
Criticism and praise
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.
Attack pages
BLPs that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them {{db-attack}}.
Reliable sources
Challenged or likely to be challenged
Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.
Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material
Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should bring the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked.
Avoid gossip and feedback loops
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Beware of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also be wary of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.
Misuse of primary sources
Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.
Avoid self-published sources
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4] See below for our policy on self-published images.
Using the subject as a self-published source
Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources.
These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses, because they are not self-published.
Questionable sources and external links
Material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections (see above). External links about living persons in BLPs and elsewhere are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or are not compliant with Wikipedia:External links. Where the external links guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.
Presumption in favor of privacy
Avoid victimization
When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
Public figures
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.
- Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is this important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe."
- Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.
Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes dates of birth where these have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or where the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.
People who are relatively unknown
Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures.
Subjects notable only for one event
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
Privacy of names
Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability.
Restraining orders
Subjects who have restraining orders may need to make special requests, which should be handled through the OTRS system.
Images
Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.
Categories
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.
Non-article space
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot; consider using off-wiki communication instead. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here.[5] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.
Deceased and legal persons; groups
This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased, but material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased; anything questionable should be removed promptly. The policy also does not apply to edits about corporations; companies; other entities regarded as legal persons; though any such material must comply with the other content policies. Bear in mind that when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits made to Wikipedia could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. With a small group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with larger groups and organizations. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.
Maintenance of biographies of living persons
Importance of maintenance
Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it, or allowing articles about non-notable publicity-seekers to be retained. When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version. Sometimes the use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion are necessary for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.
Semi-protection, protection, and blocking
Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or believe that non-compliant material may be added or restored, may protect or semi-protect pages in accordance with the protection policy. Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption; see the blocking policy.
Templates
{{BLP}} alerting readers to this policy may be added to the talk pages of BLPs and other articles that focus on living persons. {{Blpo}} is suitable for articles containing material on the deceased that also contains material about living persons. If a {{WPBiography}} template is present, you can add |living=yes to the template parameters. If a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template is also present, add |blp=yes to it. {{BLP dispute}} may be used on BLPs needing attention; {{BLP sources}} on BLPs needing better sourcing; and {{BLP unsourced}} for those with no sources at all. For editors violating this policy, the following can be used to warn them on their talk pages:
- {{uw-biog1}}
- {{uw-biog2}} or {{blp0}}
- {{uw-biog3}} or {{blp1}}
- {{uw-biog4}} or {{blp2}}
- {{blp3}} for when a block is issued
Deletion
Summary deletion, salting, and courtesy blanking
While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written BLPs should be stubbed or deleted. If the page's primary content is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant, it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page. The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the action, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. AfD and deletion review discussions may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion.[6] After deletion, any administrator may choose to protect the article against recreation. Any policy-compliant material can be merged as appropriate into another relevant article, but anything merged in this way must comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements; see Help:Merging#Performing the merger.
Where the concern is simply that the subject is borderline notable or has requested deletion, the issue should be discussed in the normal way, rather than addressed by summary deletion.
Restoring deleted content
In order to ensure that information about living people is always policy-compliant (written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources) the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. Editors adding, restoring, or undeleting material about living persons must ensure it meets all Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. If material that was previously removed or deleted is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Sticky prod
As of April 3, 2010, a new sticky prod process was established, requiring all BLPs created after March 18, 2010 to have at least one reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article, or it can be proposed for deletion. The prod tag may not be removed until such a source is provided, and if none is forthcoming the article may be deleted after a certain number of days. This does not affect the other deletion processes mentioned in the BLP policy and elsewhere.
Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia
Dealing with edits by the subject of the article
Subjects sometimes become involved in editing material about themselves, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable. When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a BLP, this might be the subject attempting to remove problematic material; edits like this by subjects should not be treated as vandalism. The subject should be welcomed and invited to explain his concerns. The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material:
For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.
— Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)[7]
Dealing with articles about yourself
Wikipedia has editorial policies that will often help to resolve your concern, many users willing to help, and a wide range of escalation processes. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, post suggestions on the article talk page, or place {{adminhelp}} on your talk page. If you have reason to complain, please bear in mind that Wikipedia is almost entirely operated by volunteers, and impolite behavior, even if entirely understandable, will often be less effective and may even lead to a block. Please try hard to avoid heading in this direction.
How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation
If you are not satisfied with the response of editors and admins to your concern, you can ask the Foundation's team of volunteers for help. Please e-mail info-en-q@wikimedia.org with a link to the article in question and specific details of the problem. For more information on how to complain, see here, and see here for how to contact the Wikimedia Foundation.
Resolutions
Wikimedia Foundation
On April 9, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution regarding Wikimedia's handling of material about living persons. It noted that there are problems with some BLPs being overly promotional in tone, being vandalized, and containing errors and smears. The Foundation urges that special attention be paid to neutrality and verifiability regarding living persons; that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest; that new technical mechanisms be investigated for assessing edits that affect living people; and that anyone who has a complaint about how they are described on the project's websites be treated with patience, kindness, and respect.
See also
- Foundation policies and resolutions
- Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy
- Foundation resolution on biographies of living persons, April 2009.
- Office actions
- Arbitration and community proceedings
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, July 2007
- Arbitration Committee/Motion regarding BLP deletions, January 2010
- Requests for comment/Biographies of living people – Phase I; Phase II, January 2010
- Content policies
- Other relevant policies
- Guidelines
- Autobiography
- Conflict of interest
- Don't bite the newbies
- External links
- Identifying reliable sources
- Manual of Style
- Notability
- FAQs
- Essays
- An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of
- Avoiding harm
- Coatrack
- Divulging personal details
- User essays on BLP
- Discussion forums
Notes
- ^ People are assumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia.
- ^ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006, and May 19, 2006; Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden: "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article"
- ^ From Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-3.
- ^ See Wikipedia:Credentials and its talk page.
- ^ "...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but current policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy: "3) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake. Passed 6-0-1"