User:Superluser/Reliable Sources for Biographies of Living People

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Wikipedia has rules for inclusion of content for biographies of living people (WP:BLP) that are different from the rules regarding all other articles on Wikipedia. This is chafing at a number of people (My opinion? It's both good and bad). I got tired of hearing the same arguments about it, so I'm starting up this essay here as a point where people can freely discuss one specific aspect of the policy.

A few initial points--

The general rules of user pages state that you're not supposed to edit user pages other than your own. I've got a few other user pages that I've offered to let anyone edit (and some have taken me up on it). This page is not one of them. Please leave this page as it is. Use the talk page.

This essay is about reliable sources and their use in biographies of living people. It also probably shouldn't become an official essay.

Most of WP:BLP is not very controversial. Don't include private details. Don't post original research. Retain a neutral point of view. Don't make an article all about how people don't like this person.

There is a talk page over at WT:BLP. If you want reasoned discourse about anything other than reliable sources and their use in biographies of living people, go there. If you want half-baked ideas about how to change WP:BLP, and if you want to criticize and refine those ideas until they become good ideas, then you've come to the right place.

All right, let's get this show on the road!

On 2005 May 26, Brian Chase edited John Seigenthaler's entry, adding (among other things) the following text:

For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven.

This addition went largely unnoticed until 2005 September. During that month and months following, Seigenthaler and a man named Daniel Brandt gave this issue media attention. Daniel Brandt, who had had his own biographical article misedited, operates a site called Wikipedia Watch, which raises some real issues about Wikipedia. In my opinion, Brandt often goes overboard on his assertions, but he definitely raises real issues that will have to be dealt with at some point.

On 2005 December 5-6, Jimbo Wales and Seigenthaler discussed the issue on CNN and NPR. 11 days later, on 2005 December 17, a new policy was created urging people to be especially sensitive about biographies of living people.

Much of the policy makes sense--it is good policy to make sure that you get facts right about someone who can sue you. For comparison, see the edit to bay leaf on 2005 September 24:

Bay leaves have been said to be poisonous, but this has never been proven.

Note the similarity between this statement and the one made about Seigenthaler. Unlike the comment about Seigenthaler, however, McCormick and Co. is unlikely to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for libel over this comment.

Wikipedia, especially as an emergent phenomenon, is unlikely to act to promote the common good or free speech or any abstract ideal. It will act to promote its own existence, and nothing more. If Wikipedia has a link to an article that is libellous and factually incorrect, and Wikipedia is in danger of being sued over it, it has a vested interest in removing it.

So here's where I start to disagree. Wikipedia already has a few links to sites with questionable or bad credibility. In many of these cases, it would be inappropriate for Wikipedia not to have links to these questionable sites. For example, the article on Holocaust denial links to the Zundelsite, a site run by Ernst Zündel, whose credibility is seriously impacted by the fact that he was found guilty of reporting false news (the law was later overturned, but two juries found his "facts" false). The Zundelsite is by no means a reliable source, but you could not write an honest article about Holocaust denialism without linking to the Zundelsite.

Now, the Holocaust isn't the biography of a living person, it's merely a major element in the biographies of millions of people, many of whom are still living persons. So there's a difference.

A similar issue surfaced over the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy, where 6 of the references are from blogs. Some of those are quite notable blogs, such as Little Green Footballs and Power Line, but three of them are rather unknown blogs, and one (Captain's Quarters) just got speedy deleted. Once again, please note that this is not a biography of a living person. It's not about Adnan Hajj, it's about the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy. Which is totally different. I guess. Also, ignore the fact that Adnan Hajj redirects to the Adnan Hajj photographs controversy.

Personally, I think that the WP:BLP policy is a reactionary policy implemented by people who saw an issue and didn't know how to deal with it, but decided that they had to do something. It's not bad, and you should expect a reactionary stance from projects in their infancy (Wikipedia is only 6 years old). Most of the policy is good and not controversial, but it could stand to have some improvements.

We're also starting to see some issues surface where entities are abusing the threat of legal force in order to censor Wikipedia. A recent high-profile case is the article for lava lamp, which was blanked for two weeks while an editor came to a decision. I happened to be over at #wikipedia when the editor responsible was discussing it, and I'm satisfied that it's neither bad editing nor bad policy, but simply a SNAFU. But such SNAFUs should be learning experiences, and policy should change in order to make such problems less likely to occur in the future.

I've got a theory or two on how I'd like to change it, but I'd like to hear your opinions, first. superluser_tc 2007 July 10, 05:04 (UTC)