→Rationale: unsourced or poorly sourced |
UninvitedCompany (talk | contribs) Rework; removed material not relevant to the unique nature of these articles, reworded and tightened prose, added safe harbor section |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{guideline | [[WP:LIVING]] [[WP:BLP]]}} |
{{guideline | [[WP:LIVING]] [[WP:BLP]]}} |
||
Editors must take particular care with writing '''biographies of living persons''', which require a degree of sensitivity |
Editors must take particular care with writing '''biographies of living persons''', which require a degree of sensitivity, must be factually accurate, and must have strict adherence to our content policies: |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability |
* [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view |
* [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Neutral point of view]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:No original research |
* [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] |
||
* [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not | What Wikipedia is not]] |
|||
We must get the article ''right''. Be very firm about high quality [[Wikipedia:Citing sources | references]] — particularly about details of personal lives. |
We must get the article ''right''. Be very firm about high quality [[Wikipedia:Citing sources | references]] — particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. <ref name=Jimbo>[http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046433.html "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], Jimmy Wales, May 16, 2006</ref> |
||
These principles also apply to biographical information about living persons in other articles. |
These principles also apply to biographical information about living persons in other articles. |
||
Line 21: | Line 20: | ||
* The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies, |
* The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies, |
||
* If the subject edits the article, it is of vital importance to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. |
* If the subject edits the article, it is of vital importance to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]]. |
||
* If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced |
* If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced criticism. If it does, delete it. |
||
== Writing style == |
== Writing style == |
||
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly and conservatively. While a strategy of [[Wikipedia:Eventualist|eventualism]] applies to some other subject areas, where a weak article is seen as a starting point, badly written biographies should not be written and when found, should be stubbed or deleted. |
|||
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 |
The article 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, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an [[advocacy journalism]] point of view. |
||
There should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and [[with great power comes great responsibility]]. |
|||
==Reliable sources == |
==Reliable sources == |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | Any assertion in a biography of a living person, which would if untrue be libellous, must be sourced. Without [[WP:RS|reliable]] third-party sources, a biography will violate [[Wikipedia:No original research|No original research]] and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], and could lead to libel claims. |
||
⚫ | Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution and should |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography. |
|||
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 reliable third-party sources should be used. Adding unpublished details is [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]], even if they come directly from the subject. |
|||
When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed. |
|||
: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. Since the claim has been called into doubt, it may be appropriate to write in this case "According to the New York Times, John Doe was born..." along with an appropriate citation of source. |
|||
Information supplied by the subject may be ''added'' to the article based on certain guidelines: |
|||
⚫ | |||
Self-published material written by the subject of the article (for example, a personal website) may be usable if: |
|||
* The information is relevant to the person's notability; |
* The information is relevant to the person's notability; |
||
Line 51: | Line 50: | ||
A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable as a source. |
A blog or personal website written by the subject 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-publishing|self-published]] primary sources is problematic: |
|||
Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy. |
|||
* 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 press|vanity]] publishers and newspapers perform to some degree. With self-publishing, there is no critical third-party input. |
|||
⚫ | |||
=== Public figures === |
=== Public figures === |
||
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation 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. |
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation 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 it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out. |
: '''Example''': "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe" — is it notable, verifiable and important to the article? If not, leave it out. |
||
Line 69: | Line 65: | ||
=== Non-public figures === |
=== Non-public figures === |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
: '''Example''': An academic who has a Wikipedia article because of his achievements 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 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. |
|||
For non-public figures, even well-sourced information should be left out of the article if it is not relevant to the public activities of the subject. For example, public records are reliable sources and include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Such information is generally not relevant even for public figures and should be removed from any articles on non-public figures. |
|||
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 be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. |
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 be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. |
||
=== Privacy of birthdays === |
=== Privacy of birthdays === |
||
Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date. |
Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date. |
||
==Safe Harbor== |
|||
==Defamation and unfair or inappropriate criticism== |
|||
===Remove unsourced negative material=== |
|||
Editors may remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material in a biography of a living person or its talk page without discussion and without regard to [[WP:3RR|the three-revert rule]]. |
|||
Any negative material about a living person that is not sourced to a reliable publication '''should be removed immediately from both the article and its talk page'''. Restoring such material is a blockable offence. See [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Biographies of living persons]]. |
|||
Administrators encountering articles that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, may delete the article without discussion (see [[WP:CSD]] criteria A9). |
|||
Administrators may at their judgement enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. |
|||
[[Jimmy Wales]] has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." <ref name=Jimbo/> |
[[Jimmy Wales]] has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." <ref name=Jimbo/> |
||
Line 89: | Line 92: | ||
===Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors=== |
===Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors=== |
||
Many persons who are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful |
Many persons who are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful to give a proportionate voice both to proponents and to critics to ensure [[WP:NPOV#Undue_weight|that majority views and minority views are given due weight]]. For example, if the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority then it has no place in the article. |
||
Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Guilt_by_association|guilt by association]], or other generalizations. |
Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Guilt_by_association|guilt by association]], or other generalizations. |
||
Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies warrant criticism, |
Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies generally warrant coverage of criticism, while biographies generally do not unless the subject is a controversial public figure. When criticism is included, it should in most cases be incorporated into the article text rather then being in a section for criticism alone. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics. |
||
⚫ | |||
''See also'' [[Wikipedia:Categorization of people]]. |
|||
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. |
|||
For example, [[:Category:Criminals]] should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given. |
|||
===Wikipedia is not a soapbox=== |
|||
Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not a place]] for editors to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs, or their orientations, nor the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view. Strive to produce an NPOV article all sides can live with, if not love. |
|||
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: |
|||
⚫ | |||
* The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question |
|||
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so [[Wikipedia:neutral point of view|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]]. |
|||
* The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life |
|||
Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. See [[Invasion of privacy#False light]]. |
Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. See [[Invasion of privacy#False light]]. |
||
Line 118: | Line 128: | ||
<blockquote>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 [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies | don't bite the newbies]] to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.<br />—[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy|Arbitration Committee decision]] (December 18, 2005)</blockquote> |
<blockquote>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 [[Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies | don't bite the newbies]] to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.<br />—[[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy|Arbitration Committee decision]] (December 18, 2005)</blockquote> |
||
===Legal threats=== |
|||
Any Wikipedia editor who makes a legal threat on the website is likely to be blocked from editing until the matter is settled, and that includes the subjects of biographies who object to their article's contents. See [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]]. |
|||
===Legal concerns=== |
===Legal concerns=== |
Revision as of 16:41, 17 May 2006
[[Category:Wikipedia wp:living wp:blps|Biographies of living persons]]
Editors must take particular care with writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, must be factually accurate, and must have 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. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. [1]
These principles also apply to biographical information about living persons in other articles.
Rationale
Well-founded complaints about biographical articles from their subjects arrive daily in the form of e-mails to the Wikipedia contact address, phone calls to the Foundation headquarters and to Jimbo Wales, and via postal mail. These people are justifiably upset when they find inaccurate or distorted articles, and the successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter requiring ongoing involvement of OTRS volunteers and paid staff.
Frequently the problem is compounded when the subject attempts to edit their own article to remove problematic content. Since such people may not be regular Wikipedians, they are unaware of our policies, and are often accused of vandalism or revert warring when they are in fact trying to edit in good faith.
Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons with two key areas in mind:
- The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies,
- If the subject edits the article, it is of vital importance to assume good faith.
- If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced criticism. If it does, delete it.
Writing style
Biographies of living people should be written responsibly and conservatively. While a strategy of eventualism applies to some other subject areas, where a weak article is seen as a starting point, badly written biographies should not be written and when found, should be stubbed or deleted.
The article 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, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.
Reliable sources
Any assertion in a biography of a living person, which would if untrue be libellous, must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.
Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and if derogatory should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).
Role of the subject as a source
In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography.
When information supplied by the subject conflicts with unsourced statements in the article, the unsourced statements should be removed.
Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article based on certain guidelines:
- 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;
- There is no reasonable doubt that it was written by the subject.
A blog or personal website written by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable as a source.
Presumption in favor of privacy
Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.
Public figures
In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation 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 it 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, redemptive factors should not be overlooked. Strive for balance at all times.
Non-public figures
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while marginally notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability.
For non-public figures, even well-sourced information should be left out of the article if it is not relevant to the public activities of the subject. For example, public records are reliable sources and include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Such information is generally not relevant even for public figures and should be removed from any articles on non-public figures.
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 be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
Privacy of birthdays
Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.
Safe Harbor
Editors may remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material in a biography of a living person or its talk page without discussion and without regard to the three-revert rule.
Administrators encountering articles that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, may delete the article without discussion (see WP:CSD criteria A9).
Administrators may at their judgement enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves.
Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]
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, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors
Many persons who are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia are likely to have critics. Their views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful to give a proportionate voice both to proponents and to critics to ensure that majority views and minority views are given due weight. For example, if the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority then it has no place in the article.
Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence from reliable sources regarding the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, or other generalizations.
Articles about ideologies, beliefs, or policies generally warrant coverage of criticism, while biographies generally do not unless the subject is a controversial public figure. When criticism is included, it should in most cases be incorporated into the article text rather then being in a section for criticism alone. The focus of a biographical article should be on the subject, not their critics.
Use of categories
See also Wikipedia:Categorization of people.
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.
For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given.
Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:
- The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question
- The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life
Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a low reputation. See Invasion of privacy#False light.
Dealing with edits by the subject of the article
While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to edit articles to correct inaccuracies or to remove inaccurate or unsourced material.
Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the individual involved is not especially notable, such edits usually are not vandalism but rather an effort by the subject of the article to remove biased or inaccurate material. RC patrollers and others who become involved should be careful to be sure who they're dealing with in such cases, and the use of inflammatory edit summaries or vandalism-related talk page templates should be avoided.
Dealing with articles about yourself
If you have a question about or problem with an article about yourself, please contact Wikipedia via email.
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 concerns
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
United States
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
- Blocking policy: Biographies of living persons
Relevant guidelines:
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources
- Wikipedia:Notability (people)
- Wikipedia:Autobiography
- Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines
Articles about living persons that have been contentious:
- John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy
- Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)
- Sollog
- Daniel Brandt
- John Byrne
- Tom DeLay
- Ashida Kim
Notes
- ^ a b "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", Jimmy Wales, May 16, 2006