Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 23 December 2005

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Shortcut

[[:|WP:LIVING
WP:BLP]]

Editors must take particular care with biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity as well as strict adherence to our content policies:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives.

These principles also apply to biographical information about living persons in other articles.

Writing style

You should document, in a non-partisan manner, what credible third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves.

The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated. There should not be any tone of either hagiography or hatchet job. Take care not to fall into either a sympathetic point of view or an advocacy journalism point of view.

Verifiability of sources

Without credible third-party sources, the biography will violate No original research and Verifiability.

Information available solely on partisan websites or blogs or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, un particularly if the material is negative. If no more credible sources can be found, there may be a problem with the material.

There is no obligation to inform the subject of a biography that you intend to write about him. If you do get in touch with him and he supplies information, only details available in good third-party sources should be used. Adding unpublished details is original research, even if they come directly from the subject. (Though a note on the article's talk page may be appropriate.)

For example, the New York Times says that John Doe was born in 1955 but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965. The Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. If a correction is published, this is verifiable and hence usable.

Self-published material as a source

Problems with self-published primary sources include:

A quality reference should ideally have had some form of third-party scrutiny, which all non-vanity publishers and newspapers perform to some degree. With self-publishing, there is no critical third-party input.
The biography may end up packed full of trivia, which will lead to a badly-written article. Some trivia may, of course, be of interest, giving a relevant insight into the subject.
The personal website you believe belongs to John Doe may have been set up with malicious intent by another person. Do not use a personal site as a source if there is any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the author.
If the subject reveals a detail and later changes their mind and removes it, there is nothing that can be verified.

The material may be usable if:

The information is relevant to the person's notability;
The information is not contentious;
The information is not unduly self-serving;
The material does not involve claims about third parties or about events not directly related to the subject.

A blog or personal website written by the subject — so long as there is no reasonable doubt that the subject is in fact the author of the website — should be listed in the external links, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable concerning themselves.

Appropriate categories

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so neutral point of view needs particular attention. Make sure all categorisations are relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content. For example, add only people convicted of a crime in a court of law to Category:Criminals, and make sure the conviction was not overturned on appeal. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people.

Presumption in favor of privacy

Public figures

Only details relevant to the notability of the subject belong in the article. If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out.

Example. John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe" — is the "messy" notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out.

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. This is a public figure and there are multiple, credible third-party sources; the allegation may belong in the biography, if it is made clear it's an allegation and not established as fact, linking to the New York Times article as a source.

If writing about a negative incident, subsequent redemptive factors should not be overlooked.

Non-public figures

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of credible, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. However, there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.

Example: An academic who has a Wikipedia article because of his work in physics is alleged to have touched a student inappropriately during a party. She tells her story to the university's student newspaper, and the story is picked up by a satirical magazine writing about sexual relations between academics and their students. No other newspaper repeats the claims, to which the academic has not responded. This allegation should probably not be placed in the article — it is not relevant to his notability, he is only marginally notable outside his work, it originates with a single witness and unsworn testimony, the sources are not particularly credible, no mainstream source has picked up the story and his life may be seriously affected if the allegation is spread.

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Libel and defamation

(Note that definitions vary between jurisdictions. See Slander and libel.)

Defamation: false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions.
Libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

Potentially libellous or defamatory statements not sourced to highly credible and verifiable sources should be removed.

Criticism of a person is not libel or defamation. Making false accusations is. As editors cannot make value judgments in respect of the truth of falseness of a statement made against a person, providing highly credible and verifiable information is crucial in such cases.

Malicious editing

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing a point of view, ask for credible third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Dealing with articles about yourself

Finding a Wikipedia article about yourself may be distressing, especially for those of minor notability unused to being written about — the Foundation gets a lot of mail about this. Wikipedia works differently to other written works — anyone can edit, even anonymously, and the information gets spread far and wide.

It would probably be a good idea to identify yourself on the article's talk page with the {{Notable Wikipedian}} notice.

You should not write about yourself, since objectivity on the subject is hard — but you can assist by providing references, by challenging unsourced statements, and by assisting other editors. The appropriate place for such communication is the talk page of the article concerned. Although you might want to draw attention to any concerns by leaving a brief note on the talk pages of particular editors, lengthy discussions anywhere else than the article talk page will likely go un-noticed.

Persistent problems with other users should be dealt with through the dispute resolution process. No legal threats should be made; quicker results will be obtained in most cases by keeping one's cool and getting help from more experienced users.

Wikipedians who notice attempts by an article's subject to correct information should remember to not bite the newbies and assume good faith. Offers to help with the Wikipedia process and etiquette may be much appreciated.

If a Wikipedia article about yourself does not exist, it is not recommended that you write one — leave it for someone else to consider you notable.

See also: Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Relevant arbitration-committee ruling

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing mercy to the subjects of biographies, especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors:

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)

Legal issues

Any Wikipedia editor who makes a legal threat on the website is likely to be blocked from editing, and that includes the subjects of biographies who object to their article's contents. See Wikipedia:No legal threats.

If you are the subject of a biography and you have a legal concern, the designated agent for Wikipedia is:

Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
146 2nd St N, # 310
St. Petersburg FL 33701
Facsimile number: +1(727)258-0207
Email: board "at" wikimedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

E-mails may also be sent to: info-en "at" wikipedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

Contact data

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so [[Wikipedia:neutral point of view|neutral point of view]] needs particular attention. Make sure all categorisations are relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content. For example, add only people convicted of a crime in a court of law to [[:Category:Criminals]], and make sure the conviction was not overturned on appeal. ''See'' [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]].
+==Presumption in favor of privacy==
-==Details of personal lives==
+===Public figures===
 Only details relevant to the notability of the subject belong in the article. If a fact or incident is notable, relevant and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article &mdash; even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If not, leave it out.
@@ Line 58: / Line 60: @@
 :'''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. This is a public figure and there are multiple, credible third-party sources; the allegation ''may'' belong in the biography, if it is made clear it's an allegation and not established as fact, linking to the ''New York Times'' article as a source.
+If writing about a negative incident, subsequent redemptive factors should not be overlooked.
-You should exercise restraint in writing about marginally notable individuals, keeping only to details relevant to their notability.
+===Non-public figures===
+In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of credible, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say.  However, there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.
 :'''Example''': An academic who has a Wikipedia article because of his work in [[physics]] is alleged to have touched a student inappropriately during a party. She tells her story to the university's student newspaper, and the story is picked up by a satirical magazine writing about sexual relations between academics and their students. No other newspaper repeats the claims, to which the academic has not responded. This allegation should probably not be placed in the article &mdash; it is not relevant to his notability, he is only marginally notable outside his work, it originates with a single witness and unsworn testimony, the sources are not particularly credible, no mainstream source has picked up the story and his life may be seriously affected if the allegation is spread.
+In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
-If writing about a negative incident, subsequent redemptive factors should not be overlooked.
 ==Libel and defamation==