[WikiEN-l] Re: Biographies of living persons - new draft guideline

Wed Dec 21 14:21:31 UTC 2005

David Gerard wrote:
> Anthere wrote:
> 
>>David Gerard wrote:
> 
> 
>>>I've done a rewrite of the proposed guideline at 
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp
>>> It's rewritten very much in the style of a quickly usable
>>>guideline - you should be able to get the whole idea from the
>>>intro, the rest is details.
> 
> 
>>I left some comments on the initial version. One thing I would found
>>useful is that a dual document is produced. One to be adressed to the
>>editor (the guidelines) and one to be adressed to the one editing his
>>biography. Sarah initial version was confusing both public, while
>>David's one is now totally oriented toward regular editors.
> 
> 
> 
> The one for the public is [[Wikipedia:Autobiography]].

Ah cool...

And don't you think there are some stuff missing in this page ? Or stuff 
maybe that should not be there now ?

I think beginning this page with a citation from Jimbo, to avoid doing 
something which he largely does himself, in particular after this has 
been mentionned in several places in the press... may actually not be 
best. In any cases, this could be used as an argument by the complainer 
in the future *against* this page and its recommandations ;-)

There is no clear explanation about how the system works at the top of 
the page.

There is nowhere mention of who they should contact in case they object 
*strongly* to the content.

And nowhere is gently mentionned that maybe (MAYBE) they could be right 
in complaining. It mostly insist in all what would be *wrong* in them 
editing the article, and not in what *we* could be wrong about and the 
people in their right to complain.

I understand you take the stance of the "editors" trying to fight vanity 
pages... and this is definitly important to do. Let me just take the 
other stance, the one of the visitor.

 From a visitor perspective, finding *false* information on his 
biography, and being perplex, this page, indicating that it is basically 
bad for him to correct false information, is a bit troubling.

Please, do not answer me [[sofixit]]. I do not have the ability to do 
this in about 150 languages. And I already give a huge amount of time to 
  the project. This is just *my* feeling to try to explain why we might 
get so many complaints on OTRS. I was asked to give my opinion, I do 
give it. I just can't myself try to fix all pending issues which might 
get us (me, not you) being sued :-(

>>Now, one thing that is imho, strongly missing in David version is 
>>somehow the description of HOW a person might feel when she discovers
>> very questionable statements about her all over the web... and has
>>very little idea how Wikipedia works. She must really feel like a
>>stranger falling in a strange land.
>>I think that I can give this perspective, due to the number of times
>>I had to answer one of these editors with a biography on OTRS. Some
>>pretty cool, some totally abashed, some absolutely furious.
>>While it is important to explain editors which guidelines to follow,
>>it is also important to explain to them the dismay of those with 
>>biographies they perceive wrong (and which are sometimes wrong
>>
>>>actually).
> 
> 
> Check the history - my first version at /temp included the paragraphs on
> this from SlimVirgin's version; Morven changed them to instructions for
> those who don't like their biography.

I do not really care about who wrote what. I just look at the result and 
comment it :-)

>>There are always too sides in a dispute and in this, I believe very
>>very much in Sarah empathic approach. And again, I say this from the 
>>perspective of one who has precisely to deal with some enraged people
>>on OTRS, mishandled by an editor.
>>It is important to remember these guys are most of the time acting in
>> all good faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. However, SlimVirgin's first version (and its title) leant too
> much towards sympathetic point of view IMO. Which is not NPOV, not at all.

I agree you were correct to change the title.

>>Aside from this, I believe the paragraph about legal threats is 
>>problematic. I wish that it is reworked. As a reminder, the
> 
> 
> 
> I just cut'n'pasted that from Slim's version; please kill it if we
> shouldn't have it, or rework it as is appropriate.

Yup.

I suggest raising the issue on juriwiki-l at wikimedia.org

I'll put them a link to the page for their consideration.
They will know what the legal implications of the phrasing are, much 
much better than I could myself :-)

>>Thanks a lot in any cases for all those working on these guidelines. 
>>Legal issues over biographies, most of you know this, are currently a
>> huge issue for the board, we really appreciate your help here to
>>deal with this. The Foundation will suffer of any legal action,
>>whether if right or wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> - d.

A comment, just aside... as a person having her biography on WP. It is 
just a stub, and unlikely to ever grow, so I have not to complain 
because no one will ever pretend I am a pornograph, or have been 
prostituting myself in the past.

Still...

I hardly dared changing my age when I noticed the year of birth was 
erroneous on one project.
I will not change the number of my kids and I did not update my 
professional situation, though it has changed and could cause me 
prejudice in the future, for not reflecting the reality of my life.

Why not ? Because they are no primary sources which could be trusted on 
the internet to assert my claims. According to your guidelines, I must 
not do this "Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you 
may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be cited from 
an external source."

Eheh, I find that a bit ridiculous... but to follow guidelines, I let 
untrue information on my page ;-) I can't prove they are untrue. It does 
not matter. But the day it writes I am currently prostituting myself to 
make a living... guidelines or no guidelines for me not to edit my 
article, unless there is a valid source, I will edit my article and 
remove the information. If reverted and blocked myself, I will know 
where to go, unlike a "victim" who is only offered this template...

We should take care of writers, but also of readers. Imho.