Disagree with exception. You can say same about political leaders. |
|||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
A biographical article should be about notable people, not about their detractors, unless these detractors are notable in their own right. In these cases their criticism of other persons can be discussed in their ''own'' biographical articles. |
A biographical article should be about notable people, not about their detractors, unless these detractors are notable in their own right. In these cases their criticism of other persons can be discussed in their ''own'' biographical articles. |
||
Wikipedia is not a place to assert the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientation, neither is the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view. That s better left to to the [[soapbox]], a [[pamphlet]], a critic's blog, or a newspaper [[op-ed]]. |
|||
==Dealing with articles about yourself== |
==Dealing with articles about yourself== |
Revision as of 23:06, 25 December 2005
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.
Sources
Without credible third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability.
Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is negative. If credible sources cannot 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 Adding unpublished details is original research, even if they come directly from the subject.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
Self-published material (for example, a personal website) may be usable if:
- The information is relevant to the person's notability;
- It is not contentious;
- It is not unduly self-serving;
- It does not involve claims about third parties or about events not directly related to the subject; that is, it may be used only as a primary source.
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 — may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable as a source.
Be aware that the use of self-published primary sources could be problematic:
- 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, it leaves the material in the Wikipedia article without a source;
- 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.
Appropriate categories
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so neutral point of view needs particular attention. Make sure all categorizations 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.
See also Wikipedia:Libel.
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.
Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors
Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about them are likely to have detractors, opponents and/or critics. Their views can be presented in a biography providing that these are made based on credible sources and in a manner that do not overwhelm the article. Note that for each detractor a public figure has, this person may have thousands that do not share these detractors views and by default their views will not be represented in the article. Be careful not to give a disporpotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics as you could be breaking one of Wikipedia's tenets of not representing a minority view as it was the majority view.
In principle, criticism sections should be reserved for ideologies, policies, politicial views, and philosophies rather than people. Articles about ideologies, or policies by their nature, warrant criticism and can have a 'criticism section', whereas a section of criticisms of people tends to just be selective agenda-driven, dislike for the person or their views by their critics, political opponents or detractors. For example, to have a criticism section in the article Communism is encyclopedic, but a criticism section for each and every publicly communist person for being communist is not. A short mention of the person's views can be included with links to relevant articles on the subject, only if these are relevant to the person's life-work.
A biographical article should be about notable people, not about their detractors, unless these detractors are notable in their own right. In these cases their criticism of other persons can be discussed in their own biographical articles.
Wikipedia is not a place to assert the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientation, neither is the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view. That s better left to to the soapbox, a pamphlet, a critic's blog, or a newspaper op-ed.
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 @)
See also
Relevant policies:
- Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
- Wikipedia:No original research
- Wikipedia:Verifiability
- Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
- Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
- Wikipedia:Libel
- Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies
- Wikipedia:Privacy policy
- Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy
Relevant guidelines:
Articles:
- John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy
- Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)
- Sollog
- Daniel Brandt
- John Byrne
- Tom DeLay