Wikipedia talk:Autobiography/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

Editing Facts

As this comment shows, I think the wording here is much to strong. There is no reason that the subject of an article should be restricted from openly (i.e. not secretly as in the Adam Curry article) edit an article about themselves to fix facts that are incorrect. The difficulty, IMHO, of making open autobiographical changes to an article is not that there is somthing inherently non-wiki about it, but rather such changes are easily open for misinterpretation by the unitiated. If Larry made this change himself, or even a more controversial change, since anyone can edit the change, it has inherently reached consensus, if in a few days to a week, there has been no modifications of the autobiographical edit. If anyone thought the edit was somehow incomplete or not factual - they could just change it.

Therefore, I made a change on talk only "rule" to more clearly describe what I see as a workable policy. Finally, because of the increased scrutiny that those involved in the project fall under by the media, it is probably best that they follow Sanger's example, and that is a shame. Trödel•talk 08:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The way the article reads now, it says you can change mistaken facts about yourself, but it also says that "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."
Unless you want to quibble that this only applies to addition and not modification, these two parts together now imply that you may change mistaken facts about yourself but only if you have an external source. Is this what you want? Ken Arromdee 17:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I changed to verifiable - I think that is a better statement of the existing policy/practice. Thanks Jitse Niesen for adding the emphasis and additional fact categories Trödel•talk 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
How would this have worked for Siegenthaler? There's no way to verify that he was never accused of involvement in the Kennedy Assassination.
The only rationale he'd be able to give for deleting that comment would be, not that it was a mistaken fact, but that it was unsourced. So as well as letting people fix factual errors about themselves, you also need to let them make other sorts of edits, like removing unsourced statements.
In fact, that whole section seems to assume that people are fixing mistaken facts about themselves by adding things. The possibility that the fix involves a deletion doesn't seem to be considered at all. Ken Arromdee 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"As a matter of practice" undermines the guideline

I copied this from the article page:

As a matter of practice, it turns out that if you guess correctly that you or your accomplishments will be determined to be noteworthy, then a self-created article promoting this fact is, in reality, not likely to be deleted. Therefore, those who have concluded, based on the available evidence, that they themselves are an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article, need probably not be overly concerned that the proscriptive guidelines given here will have any practical import.

I think this is a significant edit which undermines the guideline and should not be added unless there's some consensus for it. As recent cases have shown, we already have no shortage of people willing to create articles about themselves. They don't need further encouragement, which this could easily be read as providing. Also, these policy and guideline pages should be somewhat general and normative -- aim towards goals we want for Wikipedia -- not edited every time a decision is made so that they become mirror images of the decisions themselves. It would be as whenever a court ruled on a law we went back and edited the law to say, "in practice if X and Y is so, you shouldn't be concerned with this law." That's just silly, and it's even sillier given that the edit was motivated by only one ruling in particular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BrianH123 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Response

Please note that this edit describes pertinent aspects of the existing process, and can not represent any "change" in any "policy" (please note that all of this material is explicitly described as "not policy", re. comments on history page). So, please either contest the accuracy or relevancy of the edit, or, if taking the opinion that this is somehow a "major change" the civil thing to do is to first put it up for discussion, NOT to act as one-person censor, giving the justification that "in my view" someone's contribution isn't suitable (re. comments on history page).

Incidentally, the "law" analogy is well appreciated, as it actually works against the objection, since precedent does indeed have effect upon the body of the law. As to the "one ruling" claim, please digest the consensus opinion expressed on the original dispute page about such situations; this is clearly broader than the one case in question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Democritus (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not like the fragment. What is the relevance? It is just repeating what is says above, namely that an article created autobiographically is not necessarily deleted. The only addition is the last sentence ("Therefore … import"), with which I do not agree at all, and of which I doubt very much that it is shared by many editors.
The template at the top of the article says "please use the discussion page to propose any major changes." I'm glad that you are doing this now, but it should have been done before adding the paragraph. It is usually okay to be bold when editing articles, but guidelines represent the opinions of many editors, and one should be cautious in editing them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't like this fragment either, and had wondered where it came from myself. Basically it makes the article "Don't do X for all the following reasons. Actually, it's ok to do X." I'll remove it until there is consensus to put it back in. Stevage 02:26, 14 January 2006
Yes, that is my whole point: the entire system is not consistent. But whose interests do we serve by pretending otherwise? Let this page reflect the reality of the "guidelines" process, in hopes that it may help to create an actual policy. In any case, Stevage, I appreciate your constructive response. Democritus
I do too. So please leave his version in place. BrianH123 04:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It's good to practice constructive response, as well as appreciate it.
The current version incorporates his suggestion; it occurred to me after his comment that the irony expressed by my edit was being lost -- fair enough.
Presently, part of the original contribution is there and worded as forcefully as apparently will survive, but it lacks the latter portion that Stevage and evidently others objected to, thereby recognizing those concerns. This sounds like true consensus; consensus is not you deleting whatever-Democritus-writes and replacing it with your favorite. If Stevage himself feels I have not respected the spirit of his suggestion, then let him express it.
The wording is carefully chosen to not presume a concept of objective notability, which would be irresponsible.
(BTW, I invite all to read the conversation with an anonymous and apparently cowardly heckler on my talk page, which he later attempted to delete, after explicitly fleeing.) Democritus
Actually I have just rephrased it. It was a bit misleading to say "This just describes current practice" when the fragment in question was along the lines of "So actually it's ok to disregard this guideline." There are good reasons for not writing about yourself whether or not you turn out to be notable. So I've reworded it. Hopefully we're all happy now. Stevage 02:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy. My previous reponse to Democritus got overwritten in all the editing. I won't repost, but just summarize. In my view, both "guidelines" and "policy" have normative force (suggest what you should do), both need some consensus for change, but the latter is stronger and requires more consensus. I hope that's reasonably accurate. I did not intend to offend you Democritis; I just rolled back a change which you should have discussed on the talk page first, as the box on the top of the page says. Peace, and try not to hate me so much. I'm actually a pretty good guy. BrianH123 02:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Note: no one but BrianH123 himself (certainly not I) has intimated that I have any particular emotional attitude towards him, hateful or otherwise. Democritus

The practice, a tacit part of the guidance, undermines the rest of it.

I offer a change to the guidelines. Do not delete (only certain) self-created articles, rather, move them to User:*/bio -- all such entries, no exceptions -- where the material they contain will be available as convenient source for someone else, if they choose to create an Encyclopedia entry about the subject. Democritus

Please comment on the "As a matter of practice" paragraph

The "matter of practice" paragraph at the end of the article has been the subject of an edit war in recent days. Please give your opinion as to which version you prefer. Or propose your own language if you want or suggest that the paragraph be removed altogether. Thanks. BrianH123 21:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Version A:

As a matter of practice, some people who have created articles about themselves did indeed turn out to be noteworthy. In such cases, these articles are generally not deleted. However, for the reasons given above, it is generally better that someone else write the article.

Version B:

As a matter of practice, if your self-created article is noticed, but the consensus opinion agrees with your opinion that you are noteworthy, then your article promoting this fact is unlikely to be deleted. Note that this reality is somewhat at odds with other more explicit forms of guidance, as this practice does tend to tacitly encourage self-created entries by those who believe themselves encyclopedic.

- - - - - - - - - - - - Please comment below - - - - - - - - - - - -

The first part (from "As a matter" to "deleted") is basically the same in both versions, except that I think that the English of Version A is slightly better. The second part of Version B is not that clear to me, but I guess "other more explicit forms of guidance" refers to the rest of the current guideline. I think a correct formulation of the current consensus is that we encourage the creation of articles on people deemed encyclopedic (per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Wikipedia is), we discourage the creation of autobiographical articles (per this guideline), and if these contradict, the first rule takes priority. I do not think this is at odds with this guideline; it just says that this guideline does not exist in a vacuum, but that there are other and more important concepts (like policies and, most importantly, "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia"). Therefore, I prefer Version A. If it needs to be expanded to address Democritus' concern, I would extend the second sentence of Version A to read "In such cases, these articles are generally not deleted, because Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopaedia." -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Remove entirely, both proposed insertions are extraneous information already covered by the text in the line If you do create an article about yourself, it will likely be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain... (Bold my emphasis.) Steve block talk 22:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


As I've mentioned in other places, I think a partial solution to this problem is to point people to one of the other Wikipedia style sites that welcomes autobiographies - WikiMe or WikiTree. Since this article is written primarily to those coming here before writing their bio, I think this article should mention those alternatives. That way there's less autobiographical articles to have to debate about. --Wotwu 08:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent idea! Does anyone feel up to writing an appropriate template? Tim Pierce 15:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • There is already one template out there {{badbio}}, which can be added to an incorrectly created bio/autobio, but because of the nature of the deletion process it doesn't get seen often and only by those who have already posted incorrectly. I think what would be best is attempting to make this information on alternatives generally more pervasive and noticable up front; in hopes of stopping people before they even go down that route. My sense is that people would feel alot less hesitance (and there would be a lot less debate) about deleting marginally notable articles if they know there is an alternative out there for such information. Another template to be added to all the places where autobio guidlines are discussed would definately be a good idea, if that's what you meant. If that's what people want I'll try to throw a draft together, although I'm still learning. --Wotwu 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is just someone being provocative isn't it? We don't want to encourage people to create articles about themselves. If by some chance someone who is "notable" doesn't have an article and creates one about themselves this isn't a problem. If someone who is "not notable" creates an article about themselves, this is. If they subsequently become "notable", then someone can create the article then. Of course, any time anyone creates an article about themselves they must expect it to be "mercilessly" rewritten to preserve NPOV. Stevage 10:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this paragraph belongs at all. I think including it sends the wrong message, and it should be omitted entirely. Creating articles about yourself is discouraged, as it should be. It's not prohibited, which is also as it should be, but if we really want to discourage the practice, just say that it's strongly discouraged and leave it at that. Tim Pierce 15:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone whose only interaction with Wikipedia is that it has a bad article about him, won't be familiar with nuances of when editing such articles is allowed and when it's not, what "discouraged" means, or under what circumstances it's okay to violate guidelines. They'll just take any "this is discouraged" as a ban or near-ban and assume, at best, that only an experienced Wikipedia user may violate it and they themselves may not.
Expecting people like Siegenthaler to fix errors in articles about themselves, and discouraging people from editing articles about themselves, are conflicting goals. You can't reconcile them by saying that Siegenthaler can edit because he's only discouraged and not prohibited; a discouragement that is effective enough to drive away the people you want to drive away will be equally effective at driving away people like Siegenthaler. Ken Arromdee 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
However if one CAN remain neutral, then they should NOT be discouraged! This is VERY important. But one MUST BE ABLE TO BE NEUTRAL and stick only to verifiable information, this is EXTREMELY important. Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL encyclopedia. 70.101.144.160 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the Siegenthaler incident is actually relevant here. This immediate question appears to have stemmed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah McGuinness. It's an entirely different issue. Tim Pierce 03:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the Siegenthaler incident is very relevant, because whenever it gets discussed someone always says "He should have fixed the article himself!" If so, we'd better have policies that say he can do that. We can't try to discourage people from editing articles about themselves *and* say "Siegenthaler should have fixed the article himself!" People like Siegenthaler won't know that the discouragement isn't supposed to apply to them (if indeed it isn't).
The fact that Siegenthaler didn't even get this far, so he didn't run across this barrier, doesn't change the fact that the barrier is there and that if he had gotten farther he probably wouldn't have passed it. Ken Arromdee 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraph alltogether because Steve Block and Tim Pierce said that that's what they prefer, I'd expect that this is also acceptable to BrianH123 and Stevage, it is certainly acceptable to me, and the guideline did not have the paragraph before all this started. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I prefer too. Thanks. -- BrianH123 16:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Not banning intellectuals and scientists (proposed language)

The current language that is proposed for inclusion in the article is in bold below. --User:CarlHewitt 02:30 21 January 2006 (PST)

As per discussion in Wikipedia talk:Autobiography#Not banning intellectuals, I propose that the following language be added to this page:

There is no flat ban on people editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere. To establish such a ban would cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute. However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order.

Your comments, questions, and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Thanks, --Carl Hewitt 16:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this would be necessary. Perhaps you could explain? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Inspired by the question above by Jitse Niesen, I suggest the following clarification of the above proposed language as follows:
There is no flat ban on people editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere and such editing per se does not constitute autobiographical editing. To establish such a ban would cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute. However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order.
It seems to me that adding the above language would be helpful as Wikipedia:Autobiography has been cited to the opposite effect in Wikipedia proceedings, e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop.
Regards, --Carl Hewitt 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This is simple: There is no flat ban on anything. We simply discourage people from editing articles about themselves, for all the reasons contained in this article. It's a guideline, after all, and there are surely exceptional circumstances which justify ignoring it. Stevage 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Inspired by the above comment by Stevage, I propose the following ammended language:
People editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere per se does not constitute autobiographical editing. The Wikipedia does not wish to cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute. However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order.
Regards, --Carl Hewitt 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand what this is about. Autobiographical editing is about not editing articles about yourself. Unless you have previously published an autobiographical work, I don't see the relevance of your addition. Obviously Wikipedia doesn't want to discourage academics, but what does that have to do with this particular policy? I'm just a bit perplexed. Stevage 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly reasonable to be perplexed about this. The reason for the confusion is that in some Wikipedia proceedings (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop) in which Wipedia users have edited articles in areas where they published elsewhere, these users have been charged with violating Wikipedia:Autobiography. The reasoning used by those making the charge seems to have something to do with the idea that by making such edits they were per se engaged in self-promotion.
Because of the history of the Wikipedia in dealing with the "physics crackpot wars", there are indeed grounds for concern in this area. But we are engaged in Calvinball. I.e., as Jimbo has said, we are making this up as we go along. So we now need to clarify Wikipedia:Autobiography.
Based on my limited .5 year experience in contributing to the Wikipedia, I believe that The only long range hope for the Wikipedia in technical areas like concurrent computing is to attract more expert contributors. We now face unresolved Wikipedia policy issues because articles in Category:Concurrent computing increasingly address isses that are on the edge of the state of the art. Without more expert contributors, I am afraid that the level of conflict and general frustration will increase.
Regards, --Carl Hewitt 20:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Carl, you have been at the forefront of a massive campain of selfpromotion around here. I think you should use your conscience and stay away from articles which "are too close to your heart". Yeah, Wikipedia might lose some valuable contributions that way, but the danger of somebody unashamedly promoting his/her agenda is much greater. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the issues of WP:AUTO and Carl's RfAr should not be confused: I think WP:AUTO is a problematic guideline, and I think Carl's autobiographical editing has been problematical. ArbCom is perfectly capable of understanding what WP:AUTO does and should say in that case, and it would be foolish to try to influence WP:AUTO in order to affect the outcome there. I believe that Carl's suggestion is motivated by a genuine desire to make Wikipedia friendlier to senior scientists, and even if some of you doubt his sincerity, it does no harm to behave as if his is acting in good faith and engage his suggestion on its merits. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Another Wikipedia user has pointed out to me that the following is also relevant: WP:NOR#The role of expert editors
Therefore, I suggest that the proposed language become as follows:
People editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere per se does not constitute autobiographical editing. The Wikipedia does not wish to cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute (see WP:NOR#The role of expert editors). However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order.
Regards, --Carl Hewitt 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
An afterthought: I find this discussion interesting, but I don't think I'll say much here until Carl's AfD is finished, since I hope that ArbCom will say something substantive about this matter. I will say at least that we need WP:AUTO to be both more nuanced and more prescriptive than it is at present, and that I think that Carl is right about the offputting nature of the current guideline to some potentially valuable contributors. --- --- Charles Stewart(talk) 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment (which is about the Afshar experiment, an experiment conducted by Shahriar Ashar), it was commented that "The dynamics of someone [in this case, Afshar] contributing directly to an article about their own work are as described in Wikipedia:Autobiography: even with the best of intentions, it's hard to ensure NPOV." This comment seems to describe the guideline correctly and I agree with it: the Afshar experiment is so closely associated with Shahriar Ashar himself that he should be very careful about contributing to the article. So I still do not see a reason to change the guideline.

In my understanding, WP:AUTO does not preclude one from contributing to the general area in which one publishes (for instance, Afshar could contribute to articles on quantum mechanics).

The RfAr case mentions this guideline in many places and I am not sure which one bothers Carl. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment, the citation of Wikipedia:Autobiography is accompanied by a reference to the misgivings by Reuben under which the following comment had already been posted:
  • I think the professor and wikipedia would be best served if his involvement were only on the talk page of the article. Perhaps he could keep a website posting information and answers to disputes brought up here, and he could link the talk page to them -- Anon —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.254.142.215 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
So in this sense Wikipedia:Autobiography was used in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment in a way that is contrary to the proposed language above.
Also the proposed language should make clear that Afshar could legitimately (although as you point out very carefully) contribute to the article Afshar experiment as long as he respected Wikipedia policy and guidelines including Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR.
I suggest the following improved wording to include the very carefully part:
People editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere per se does not constitute autobiographical editing. The Wikipedia does not wish to cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute (see WP:NOR#The role of expert editors). However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order. In this regard, a Wikipedia editor should take special care in case of articles reporting on their own published work or the reporting on the published work of someone with whom they have personal relationship.
Regards, --Carl Hewitt 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Carl, thanks for standing up for objectivity and accuracy. Since you mentioned my work, I wish to make it clear (as it can be seen in the 1st deletion bid archive) that I have suggested to offer my corrections and new related publication material to an objective editor (even if he/she disagrees with my conclusions). To date no-one has accepted to act in that capacity. Sadly, this leads to my inability to correct the obvious errors in the article, which then causes more confusion about what I have actually claimed. I suggest that we start a process of asking qualified editors to act as "official editors" of the page, so that their edits remain as the more reliable portions of the article. While non-official editors can still edit the article, their input should be closely and promptly monitored to ensure accuracy. I hate self-promotion (and have never acted in that manner), but I hate disinformation and lies even more. I believe truth does not require salesmen; it simply sells itself. Best regards. Prof. Afshar 09:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Afshar,
Thanks for your kind words. You do in fact face something of a conundrum here because the Wikipedia is still evolving to deal with this kind of situation.
Having accurate content in the article Afshar experiment is fully and completely endorsed by the Wikipedia. The problem is to devise a mechanism that will accomplish this purpose. So I suggest the following:
Establish a clean draft of the entire article Afshar experiment in a subpage of the discusion page of your user page User talk:Afshar. Special rules apply to your user talk page and other users are not allowed to vandalize it. If another user vandalizes your user talk page, you can simply revert the changes. (Do you know how to do this easily?) Make your suggested corrections to the version of the article on your user talk page. You can allow other users who have the expertise and knowledge to improve the version on your user talk page. When a good enough draft exists on a subpage of your user talk page we can move it to the discussion page of the article Talk:Afshar experiment where we can collectively defend the proposed changes. After that we can update the article Afshar experiment itself to remove the errors and collectively defend the changes.
The above process might seem a bit involved. However, it is fairly likely to work and it is well in tune with current Wikipedia policies and practices.
Regards, Carl Hewitt 02:24, 21 January 2006 (PST)

See additional discussion of this proposal at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop#Motion on not banning intellectuals and scientists --Carl Hewitt 09:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no further discussion are we ready to place the following language in the article?

People editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere per se does not constitute autobiographical editing. The Wikipedia does not wish to cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute (see WP:NOR#The role of expert editors). However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order. In this regard, a Wikipedia editor should take special care in case of articles reporting on their own published work or the reporting on the published work of someone with whom they have personal relationship.

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No. It's written so convolutedly, I object on esthetic grounds alone. I might also object on substantive grounds if I had the patience to parse it. --BrianH123 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Please make suggestions on how to rephrase so that it does not seem convoluted to you. --Carl Hewitt 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions:
1. Don't write in the third person when the guideline itself is in the second person.
2. Writing a sentence with a really long gerund phrase where you go on and on for a dozen words or more till you're almost at the end of the sentence before the poor reader knows what the subject is is bad.
3. Put "per se" after what it modifies ("autobiographical editing"). Or rephrase and lose the Latin ("does not, in itself, constitute...").
4. Don't mention sanctions; it's jarring. Simply state what's expected.
-- BrianH123 06:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. New proposed wording is below:

Editing articles in the Wikipedi on subjects on which you have published elsewhere does not, in itself, consitutute autobiographical editing. The Wikipedia does not wish to cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute (see WP:NOR#The role of expert editors). However you should be sure to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR. Also you should take special care in case of articles reporting on your own published work or reporting on the published work of someone with whom your have personal relationship.

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 06:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead, recklessly perhaps, and altered the guideline to address your goals (I think), though not with the exact language you proposed. Please take a look and anyone feel free to revert quickly if you disagree. My language is both more stern and more lenient. The fact that "writing about yourself" also includes your website, business, achievements, etc., which previously was burried later in the article, has now been moved up, which tends to emphasize it and make the guideline more strict. But I've also added language that hopefully makes clear that contributing to an article you've previously published on elsewhere does not, in itself, constitute "writing about yourself", so long as it's done in a particular way, which I try to describe. --BrianH123 17:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Conflicts of Interest re Colleges

There is currently an edit war going on on the Reed College page, and as a result it has been suggested that some members of a college's community should recuse themselves from edits because of this (the Autobiography) policy. As a matter of policy, it it this group's opinion that college students, alumni, trustees, or staff members should not edit pages about their college? So my position is clear, I would believe that a college should not have their (e.g.) PR department edit an article, and that no one should edit that article on behalf of the college, but that membership in any of the above categories should not be a bar from edits -- as an individual -- to a page about the college in question. Thank you for your consideration -- Gnetwerker 02:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I think we have to be careful not to be too reactionary. Yes, wikipedia is not an advertising site, but just because someone writes positively about a college and happens to attend there isn't neccesarily a bad thing. I understand your concerns, but I think it's both more work and against the Wikipedia spirit to prevent users who might be biased from writing about a topic they may have the best information on.--Wotwu 20:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gnetwerker, I think you are perhaps being coy here. You are very likely a trustee of Reed College, or someone with similar access and interest. I have asked you repeatedly what your affiliation is, and you refuse to say. Why not simply post your position here, and let people judge you on the actual merits, rather than attempting characterizing the discussion in terms of "members of a college's community?" IronDuke 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • When editing an article on a subject one is personally involved in, it is particularly important to remember and respect NPOV and verifiability. Disclosure of one's precise relationship might be nice, but I don't think it's really necessary. Isomorphic 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I should emphasize my agreement that verifiability and NPOV are the issues here. Especially in the case of a small private college, students, alumni, faculty, and staff are going to be the (primary) experts (other than perhaps in matters of great public notoriety), and that community is usually large enough to contain a diverse set of opinions on true issues. -- Gnetwerker 05:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

If you see an autobiography

What should an editor do if he or she comes across an article written by the subject, but the subject can claim notability. Jeff Tamarkin: This is a recent example. Should we delete and ask someone else to write another article? That's certainly an extra step. On the other hand, letting the article stand would create a hierarchy among users that I don't think I'd like. What's the proper response?Bjones 14:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

it it's biased or unsourced, then edit it. if it's not notable than afd it.
frankly, i think this whole guideline makes no more sense than asking people interested in politics not to edit political articles or fans of a band not to edit that article. Jim Hightower has his personal assistant editing his page -- she found lots of errors. A really good personal friend of Biff Rose has been working on that page. what's the difference between good friends, or employees, and the person themselves? i imagine political POV-warriors are a lot more problematic in introducing bias to much more important articles. god forbid anyone edit anything they care about. whatever, it's official now, just my two pence. Derex 15:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there any tag for autobiographies? Is it fair to someone be the major or only editor of his own article without public warning? --Patrick-br msg 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm also searching for it. Template:notable Wikipedian is somewhat similar, but not exactly the tag. --Vsion 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I accidentally found two autobiographies today: Robert Little, Christoph Marcinkowski. Any advice? --Vsion 07:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the correct process is to add them to Autobiography Category by adding the following (to talk page I am presuming) [[Category:Wikipedian autobiography|Lastname, First]] Trödel•talk 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I've found the following two templates: Template:Wikipedian-bio and Template:Notable Wikipedian. From what I can tell, the latter is used much more commonly. Lbbzman 20:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be cool if someone good at grapics could design a template for autobiographies. Bertilvidet 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The article below, about David Allen Lambert, apears to be started and heavily edited by himself. Moreover, the article smacks of promotion, attempting to use one media story about one baseball player to gain attention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Allen_Lambert

I suggest a third-party person take this up, on whether this should be deleted or not.→ R Young {yakłtalk} 08:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

"autobiography as translation service"

While browsing through the Wikipedia articles needing translation category, I found articles containing substantial autobiographical material in non-English, such as:

Sakir kocabas

Stehr, Nico

What is the proper handling? I would think that translation by another person into English will still retain the autobiographical element. I want them removed from the "needing translation" category. 67.160.10.87 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

One of those has since been translated the other deleted. Either way you need to do the same as if its in english. That is either remove objectional content (if the person is notable enough) or WP:VFD it if not. Simply removing the translation tag just means leaving the crap arround in a format most of our visitors/editors can't read. Plugwash 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Your relatives

To the existing list

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

I added "your relatives", being bold (its not *in bold* in the text, of course). Arguably, like all the other items, its covered under "other poss c o i" but I thought it should be explicitly mentioned. William M. Connolley 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent removal

I do not agree with the removal of:

"Of course, you should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, sexual orientation, criminal involvement or lack thereof, current employer, place of birth, work done in foreign countries, etc."

as being inconsistent with official policy. My reasoning is explained at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Soapbox contradiction, part II. It's best to keep the discussion in one place, so please comment there. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Update to reflect WP:LIVING

Currently this guide suggest the only exception to the guideline is for vandalism. But I think policy actually allows (and encourages) people to remove any unsourced negative statements. Somewhere it should say:

If you see a negative statement about you (or any other living person) that has no source whatsoever, you are encouraged to remove the unsourced claim immediately. If a statement is based on a source (such as a newspaper) but you dispute it's truthfullness or signficance, you should instead discuss it on the talk page. However, all Wikipedians are encouraged to remove unsourced negative statements about any living persons, without delay. See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more information. If such negative unsourced claims are re-added without sources, you may report the matter to admins who may block repeat offenders.

Basically, I think we want people who see unsourced negative claims to feel they can simply fix the problem themselves (as opposed to calling the office, or the media, or just complaining generally). --Rob 00:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)--Rob 00:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone going to put this in? The statement that users can't edit their own articles is in a big, highlighted, box, in bold letters. Nobody is going to see a statement in a separate article which, if very carefully read, might be interpreted to mean that users can, after all, edit their article under these circumstances. If you don't make it *clear* that users can remove negative material--and not just by displaying the statement with much less prominence than the statement that users can't edit their own pages--they won't know it. New people, like Siegenthaler and anyone else who comes to Wikipedia only because it has an article about themselves, aren't going to see statements that are buried.
Unfortunately, we need a strong consensus to change a guideline. If nobody is willing to even discuss the change, then there's no way to get a consensus, and we end up being stuck with a bad guideline by apathy. Ken Arromdee 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Rereading it again, I noticed the boldfaced statement does say you can make corrections... at the end. I still think this is badly presented; right now it's an unconditional statement that users can't edit their own articles at all, with a little exception tacked on. It's easy to miss the exception, because the paragraph is not worded in an inverse pyramid way and the exception means that the original sentence should not have been unconditional. We have signs in stores which say "No dogs allowed, except for seeing eye dogs." We do *not* have signs in stores which say "Dogs are categorically prohibited from the store. Dogs cause noise and disruption, leave dog hair and excrement. The store refuses to spend millions of man-hours cleaning up after your dog. Of course, seeing eye dogs are allowed." Ken Arromdee 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I need help

Hi, i came here looking for info about what to do if:

There is some person who repeditively makes a page about himself and re-creates it every time it is deleted.

Is there any policy on how to deal with this? I have seen the page in question in the new pages log three times and I have no doubt that it has been there more than that. The page I am talking about is Yileen Gorden (probably a red link) made by User:Yileen. I have told the guy twice (via his talk page) to keep that kind of stuff on his user page, I even copied the contents of his article to his user page. but I have not recieved any replies to my comments, nor have I seen him change this behaviour. Somehow, when i go to Special:Contributions/Yileen it comes up blank. Is this because all of his contributions were deleted? I'd really like to know what I do now. Any help is greatly appreciated MichaelBillington 12:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism

I have been seeing cases around Wikipedia that seem to be a form of autobiography, where foreign nationals come to the English-language Wikipedia, to promote a point of view or set of articles here which aren't necessarily notable or agreed with by most English-language speakers. Plus of course there are the nationalist pride elements, as the citizens of one country may want to edit an article to ensure that their country is portrayed "in the proper light", regardless of how the rest of the Wikipedia community feels. I've been toying with the idea of adding a paragraph to this Autobiography guideline to reflect the nationalist problem, or in other words, "If English is not your native language, please use caution when editing articles about your own country or politics, to ensure that you are not pushing a nationalist POV." I've also been seeing cases where books in non-English languages are having pages show up for them here on the English-language Wikipedia, when it's not entirely clear that the book is at all notable outside of its native tongue. Please rest assured that I don't want to flat-out exclude non-native English speakers, because often their edits are valuable. But the POV-pushing is starting to become worrisome from areas that are politically volatile. What do other Wikipedia editors think? Is this something that it might be worth addressing at WP:AUTO, or has it already been addressed elsewhere, or is it just not yet time to try and hammer out the difference because "nationalistic autobiography" and "personal autobiography"? --Elonka 23:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability in its native tongue should be sufficient, if that notability is real. One of the main areas we've tried to address with WP:CSB is the limitations caused by the fact that this encyclopedia is overwhelmingly the work of anglophones. On the other hand, presenting an exaggerated national (or local ) importance ("the lightbulb was really an Elbonian invention"; "It is a little-known fact that Disraeli's guiding principles all derived from his three-week visit to Miese-on-Seine") or distorting history on a nationalist basis ("We didn't invade Fredonia: it was a justifiable act of self-defense after a Fredonian tourist was caught with a pistol"; "we never kicked out the Djamms, they all left voluntarily at the same time") are a problem. But they are just as much of a problem if they come from someone whose nationality is in the English-speaking world. - Jmabel | Talk 19:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Public relations practitioners

Worth a look: Brian Wasson, The wide world of Wikipedia, and why PR practitioners should take note, March 28, 2006, Public Relations Society of America. 80% or more things we would probably all agree with, to the point where we might want to link it from this project page. Two things I disagree with, that should probably be pointed out if we do so.

  • "Do not post copyrighted material, even if it’s from your own Web site and you are authorized to do so. Material on Wikipedia is considered open source and may be picked up by other Web sites without your permission." Heck, if it's on your site and you are authorized to release it under GFDL, great! Just recognize that once it is released under GFDL, people can publish it freely. But, for example, the bulk of the list of prominent cases on the page about the NAACP LDF came from the organization itself and was used by permission. This is a perfectly valid way to get content, as long as it is either strictly factual (as in the LDF case) or is presented as the organization's views on topics where their views are of encyclopedic notability. In either case, it should be explicitly indicated as coming from the organization's own materials, just like citing any other source.
  • "The “external links” section at the bottom of each article can be a valuable way to drive traffic to your Web site. When appropriate, add your URL to this area." Sort of true, but really frowned upon to add a link to your own site. If you believe it is appropriate, the protocol is to mention it on the talk page, and let someone else decide if it belongs in the article.

- Jmabel | Talk 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points, especially the second - I hadn't noticed that one. Perhaps we could point out that external links are appropriate if they provide an informative role to give more information about the subject, but not if they're blatant rah-rah boosterism? And I don't recall the article mentioning the use of talk pages, either - that would be a good thing to bring into the discussion. PR folks (who I deal with pretty well daily) are usually used to putting the information out in the most flattering form possible - but they can't do that here, so they could be well served to learn the use and function of talk pages, as you point out. All in all, though, I think this is a great resource that should be linked to this project page. Tony Fox (speak) 20:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO and The Image of Size

I want to raise a question that I think is relevant to WP:AUTO, if only because I can't find another guidelines about it. On a number of pages, I see descriptions of groups, centers, "movements", philosophies, etc. that appear to on closer examination to be basically the expression of one person. They aren't autobiographical pages. On the contrary, the point of the pages is to promote one's pet project (that's five Ps!) by suggesting that it is much larger than oneself. These are clearly POV issues, but if they get addressed that way, it turns into a kind of recursive, muddy, debate.

I would be in favor of asking people to recuse themselves from posting on groups that they founded, or ideas that they invented, as part of the WP:AUTO guidelines. Ethan Mitchell 14:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Propose "person's POV" section

I feel like not enough people have tried to put themselves in the shoes of a person who has been poorly portrayed on a Wikipedia page. It has never happened to me, thankfully, but I can imagine how awful it would be. I imagine that it would be like being unpopular in elementary school -- except that people not only make up things about you behind your back, they also put those things in the newspaper.

It is not really fair to expect every notable person in the world to have the time, knowledge, or emotional stamina necessary to engage the wikipedia community and to convince others in the usual way about the incorrectness of their portrayal. Yes, Jimbo has survived the current policy, but remember that he is familiar with Wikipedia, both the process and the community.

Because of the unfairness of being attacked without being able to respond, and because of the amount of damage that may result from an unfair or incorrect wikipedia article about you, I propose that, on any page about a living person, that person should, if they wish, be permitted to have a SMALL section where they are permitted to respond to the rest of the page. This section wouldn't quite be the property of that person (flaming, etc, would not be permitted) but the person would be given a wide latitude to say what they wish.

The section would be clearly marked as the sole, unverified OPINION of that person.

Yes, this part would not be encyclopaedic. But we have a chance to, at very little cost, perform a function that print encyclopaedias cannot -- to allow people a chance to defend their reputation.

A disclaimer would be present that Wikipedia has no way of knowing if the contents of that section was actually written by that person (because it would be impractical to verify identity). However, if it appears that a cogent defence of the person has been replaced by something less cogent by a troll pretending to be them, we should feel free to revert back to the prior version, in order to best protect the person. Bayle Shanks 01:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Paying others

Wikipedia:Autobiography says "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." Paying others to do things they themseves are not allowed to do is not acceptable behavior. See this where a talk page is used to advertise for exactly that. Please see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006 in this regard. WAS 4.250 21:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not banning intellectuals

The following material was extracted from User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Proposal_to_ban_intellectuals.

I think a flat ban on people editing things about which they have direct involvement is a bad idea, as it would cut out many of the people with the most knowledge about, and motivation to edit, the things in question. However, if they show inability to stick to NPOV and NOR, some individual sanctions might be in order. *Dan T.* 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds right; it also seems to be pretty close to existing practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we find language to incorporate the above insights into this article. Regards, --Carl Hewitt 08:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, anyone with knowledge, whether they are "intellectuals", "experts", etc. or not, should be allowed to contribute, equally. But giving extra "freedom" to "intellectuals", "experts", "scientists", etc. in making autobiographies that anyone else would otherwise not have would be against fundamental WP principle. In fact, it might make more sense to actually restrict A/B "freedom" for them, since scientists tend to have big egos. Remember, according to Jimmy himself "NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable"!!!! Thus any "laxity" given to "scientists" to let them push POV would be wrong. Whether or not one should write an autobiography has to do with the following things: notability of them, their work, and/or other things related to them, their ability to remain neutral, their ability to stick to published material, their ability to not go and toss it "off the top of my head" ideas. It does not matter whether on is an "expert" or not, nobody is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia principles like NPOV, just as nobody who adheres strictly to official policy should be "banned" from doing autobiographies or _whatever_. 70.101.144.160 03:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is especially true if you happen to know someone and identify information that is false about them, as long as the other rules are complied with.--68.45.161.241 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This suggestion is disingenuous. It is proposed by Pravknight (talk • contribs), who has an ongoing user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight, for improperly editing an article he's personally involved in. His editing the article is proscribed by this guideline as a conflict of interest. His changing this policy to remove that prohibition is also a conflict of interest. FeloniousMonk 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a personal attack, and we should allow the community to decide what it thinks. I think my suggestion is especially relevant when it comes to having personal knowledge that certain asserted facts are false or libelous. Everyone should be allowed to participate in policy discussions and live with the consenus of the other editors on this policy, which I will.
If someone is accused of robbing a bank by a group that doesn't know all of the facts or uses ad hominem falsehoods without any hard evidence, why shouldn't someone close to the case who knows the facts be allowed to have a say?--Pravknight 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Pravknight, are you pretending that you have a good history on this topic??? Are you under the impression that you are named in a user conduct RFC because you have a good record as regards to this guideline? If not, then I fail to see why you think it was somehow uncivil for me or anyone else to identify you as a "violating WP:AUTO", which you are. It's not as if your very pronounced history as a disruptive editor with a problem with WP:AUTO is irrelevant to the fact that you're trying to steer development of the guideline on editing articles you are personally involved with. Are you saying that you would have preferred it if I had said "And now we have Pravknight, who is subject to an ongoing RFC precisely because he is violating WP:AUTO"? I suspect that your preferred alternative would actually be to have the fact that your violating the guideline and disruption therein earned you the RFC be hidden away completely and never referred to, but that is hardly called for by WP:CIVIL. FeloniousMonk 16:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
If he's following official policy like NPOV, then he should not be criticized for making autobiographies. If the guideline forbids or discourages it even if all official policy is strictly adhered to, something's wrong with the guideline, it's TOO restrictive and it should DEFINITELY be changed. I STRONGLY believe this. However, if the guy is NOT following official policy then yes, you could charge him with "violating WP:AUTO" indeed, and charge him with violating all the official policies he violates. 70.101.144.160 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid making personal remarks. Stick to the topic of this page, which is "how Wikipedia should treat autobiographical writing". Thank you both. --Uncle Ed 16:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing nuthsell

Avoid writing or editing articles about yourself (...). Feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself. - I think this would be quite confusing to most newcomers to Wikipedia (which are most likely to be involved in WP:AUTO related issues). Can they and should they edit those articles or not? The nuthsell must be improved, and possibly the policy itself needs to be tweaked. I'd suggest rewording this, replacing 'avoid' with 'be careful with'. See also related discussion here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

To quote my earlier comnment, it's like saying "Dogs are categorically prohibited from the store. Dogs cause noise and disruption, leave dog hair and excrement. The store refuses to spend millions of man-hours cleaning up after your dog. Of course, seeing eye dogs are allowed."
The main prohibition is presented so strongly, so prominently, and in so much detail that the exception seems completely out of place. Ken Arromdee 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
So would there be consensus for rephrasing it? if there are no objections in the coming days I will edit the policy page per the above discussion.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I already did that edit (diff) and then deleted the whole paragraph in which that particular sentence appears (diff) a few days ago. It used to be a nutshell (see Template:Guideline in a nutshell) summarizing the whole page, but that template was removed on 27 Nov (diff). I found the layout confusing at that point, and I thought it would be better to remove the whole paragraph.
Or is there something else which you think should be changed? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it looks better without the nut. The purpose of this page is clear enough that it doesn't need a oneline summary. >Radiant< 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EAutobiography_Archive_2_003b.html"