Wikipedia talk:Autobiography/Archive 1

This page 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.

Some surveys

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Wikipedians who support the rule "do not create new articles on yourself" include:

Robert Merkel (proposed the rule - "the minimum necessary to ensure the continued improvement of Wikipedia")
Kat - but "I think we should take it a couple steps more"
Angela - but "I think there is a danger in the rule becoming too general".
Vicki Rosenzweig - "The basic idea seems sound, but I think it should be narrow".
Kosebamse - "I'm still in favor of an outright NO on everything that smells of self-promotion".
till we *) - "One shouldn't write about things one is mainly emotionally interested in (like one self, lovers, crazing fandom), but one should write about things one is mainly 'professionally' interested in".
MB - "I totally support this new policy, and vote to make it official".
Daniel Quinlan - "premise of policy is good, but there is still some problematic auto-biographical material not covered by this policy yet: editing of articles to include links to oneself or ones own works, adding articles for wares, etc."
Deb - It should be seen as guidance for newcomers.
—Eloquence - Definitely a useful rule to avoid bias and bogus articles
Isomorphic - There's no need for anyone to write an article about themselves.
Wile E. Heresiarch -- If you're notable, someone else will write about you.
Trilobite
Peter S.
Vsion -- pls use stronger language "... shall not edit an article about yourself or promote yourself in any way in any mainspace article."
SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC) I'd like to see this become policy.
Support per Wile E. Heresiarch. Edwardian 07:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Agnte I'd like to see it become policy. If you're writing an article about yourself then it's going to be quite difficult to not violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Somone else should always do it.
BrianH123 Not even a newspaper would let you write an story about your own accomplishments, or at the very least it would have to go on the opinion page or carry a conflict-of-interest warning. An encyclopedia is supposed to be more authoritative, more objective than a newspaper article, not less. Users should not be allowed to create articles about themselves, or at the very least there should be a prominent notice on the page to the effect that that is what was done. One shouldn't have to dig through the history and associate user names with real names, or look on the talk page, to get that information. BrianH123 22:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Democritus Strongly concur with Agnte, Vsion, and others -- I definitely support the rule. Since obviously many do not, though, acting as if we have "policy" to that effect, when we don't, is antagonistic to the other 50%. The information on this page should accurately reflect the process that is in place regarding this rule. If one does not like that reality, then convince others to change the process, rather than assuming the right to effect an exclusive view of it, via self-appointed censoring.

Wikipedians who oppose the rule "do not create new articles on yourself"

The Cunctator - This isn't DMoz.
Andre Engels - I agree with Anthere, although she has described herself as a supporter
Ryan_Cable
BL - This rule makes as much sense as "do not write about your hometown", "do not write about an organisation you're a member of" or "do not write about subjects in which you have a pov". Problems with users advertising themselves can be solved my other means.
Martin - Even silly rules like this one are more red tape.
NetEsq - What Martin said
Hayford Peirce -- I wrote an initially over-long autobio about myself and then cut it greatly to a barebones article. It's very hard to know precisely what to put in or not when writing about oneself, so an autobio either tends to be a little too short or much too long. But I do think, however. that Wikipedia ought to be encouraging living people to be writing about themselves in a substantial way, or even a very substantial way, even though this may at first sight seem like vanity to others. It may well be true in the long run that if one is substantive enough, someone else will eventually write a bio of that person. But how long do we, the users of the encyclopedia have to wait for it? And isn't even the most informed biographer going to miss details and insights that only the person concerned knows? As a "for instance", right now the American author Allen Drury, who wrote the famous (and wonderful) Advise and Consent and a *ton* of other books only has a 1-line entry about him. He died a year or so ago at age 90, more or less. It would be nice if someone like him had written several thousand (or more) words about his career, as seen by himself. Now his voice, and that perspective, is lost forever. I think that most people who actually *have* a noteworthy career, or achievements worthy of being written about, will actually tend to be over-diffident about themselves if anything. I think that the "vanity" factor that a lot of Wikians worry about is overstated, that they are reacting to the vanity bios pasted by 14-year-old students, etc. This is, of course, a problem, but I think the difference between them and an Allen Drury writing about himself, or let's say a Mickey Mantle, or an ex-governor of North Dakota, will be easily discernible.
Eequor - but only if one can write about oneself in a neutral, non-self-promoting way.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC) - Foolishly capricious statement to avoid contributions by those most knowledgeable. WP:NPOV is already a separate rule; following it is both necessary and sufficient.
User:Zordrac - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Hirst for a VERY good reason why this is a bad policy.

Unsure/other comments:

User:Anthere - lucky warm only. I would certainly support avoiding self-promotion, but the most important aspect for me would be "no self promotion". I would not strictly support enforcing the rule : as long as NPOV is respected (and NPOV also include honesty about one own fame imho), it should be fine. Sadly, it is tough to be honest about oneself :-) I am not sure I was clear. I disagree with a rule stating one should *not* write about himself. I would support guidelines saying to avoid to do so. The two questions I would ask are "Is the person famous enough to be here, if yes, let hir write about hirself" second would be "Is it written in an obvious self-promotion goal or in a pov way, if no, let hir write about hirself".
quercus robur - "being a friend or associate of the encylopedia subject matter can often be a positive way of getting the very best information"
-phma - "I wrote an article about my father"
Nelson - "Why don't we just move the article to Boyer's userpage?"
~~Antaeus Feldspar - "I am proud to be the recipient of a WikiMedal for Janitorial Services, awarded by Topbanana".~~ I have never had, nor tried to create, a Wikipedia article about myself. The above comment was copied from my user page by Diceman [1]. Diceman, please learn the difference between an article and a user page; if I really had the "relish in taking down other's work" that you accused me of, I would not have suggested moving your article to your user pages as an alternative to deleting it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Karmafist A user definately shouldn't start the article, but they can elaborate if they stick in NPOV. They should be treated like any other expert on the subject. 01:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Um... if it's an AUTObiography, then by definition you MUST write it about yourself. Otherwise it's just a biography! Ridiculous! - ascheinberg

I should that although this proposed rule is obviously inspired by the arguments over Daniel C. Boyer, I am not advocating the removal of that article. I haven't examined the particulars of that case closely enough to decide whether he warrants an article in Wikipedia or not. --Robert Merkel 04:46, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for creating this proposed rule.

I think we should take it a couple steps more. People should recuse themselves from writing articles about themselves, their companies, products, research they have done, friends, or relatives. And they should recuse themselves from editing and contributing such articles on the wiki. If someone wishes to edit or contribute to an article to which they have personal ties, the material should be posted to the talk page and the edits performed by others.

Kat 18:11, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

To some degree I take your point and see where you are coming from, but to use the example of Crass, I'm a freind of some ex-members of the band who, I think it is undeniable, have enough cultural significance to be included on wiki On the whole I havn't used that friendship and have used verifiable, public domain sources when adding to the article about them, but have used stuff that has been told to me (annecdotal) stuff by Penny Rimbaud, Steve Ignorant and others that I would consider valuable to the article (eg, the stuff about Crass having been more influenced by avant-garde music than rock 'n' roll and their influences from John Cage and Benjamen Britten (no different from material that could have been gleaned from a formal interview, it just happened to take place in an informal context, but has expanded insight beyond what is generally to be found about Crass in, say, punk rock encylopedias, at least those I've seen. The other occasion when friednship with the encylopedia subject has been valuable to the wiki project has been the abilty to debunk basic bullshit such as the disinformation 'Micheal' was spreading abouty Crass, all that stuff about Pete Wright having been in some band called Trapeze, it was the easiest thing in the world simply to ask face to face, much quicker than any web search...

maybe I've overstated my case here using one specific example, but the pojnt I'm making is that being a friend or associate of the encylopedia subject matter can often be a positive way of getting the very best information, and to say that such information should be filtered through a third party via a talk page is creating uneccesary cumbersome-ness. Just my four pennorth... quercus robur

My philosophy on rules for Wikipedia is that they should be the minimum necessary to ensure the continued improvement of Wikipedia, and therefore I have made my proposal quite narrow. I would agree that people should not originate articles about the topics you list, generally. I don't see that a ban on their contributions is necessary, and might potentially be counterproductive (if, say, the biographer of a famous person became a Wikipedia contributor, I wouldn't want to prevent them from contributing their knowledge if it is incorporated according to Wikipedia rules such as NPOV). I would agree that anyone who edits an article that falls into those categories should disclose on the talk page their connection to it.--Robert Merkel 22:51, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Isn't there a suggestion (on the "Welcome Newcomers" page, maybe, I forget) that you should create articles about your hometown, your university, etc? I'm sure I read that when I first came here. Adam Bishop 22:58, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:How to add content to Wikipedia with minimal effort. - Patrick 16:27, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The current version of the welcome page doesn't mention your home town etc, but it does say "we'd like you to contribute your knowledge". People are likely to have knowledge about things that relate to them. Whilst I agree with the proposed policy that generally people should not create articles about themselves, I think there is a danger is this rule becoming too general and people objecting to someone editing anything that is related to themselves. Angela 23:15, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Precisely! quercus robur 23:29, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wrote an article about my father, since I think bringing urethane to the USA is a notable achievement. Others have made minor changes, but no one seems to have thought it POV. I also started Pineville and Charlotte, both of which have been edited by the Rambot. The bowling pin incident is mentioned elsewhere on the Web, but the collection of molds isn't; that and the specifics in the Pineville and Charlotte, I think, give them character that wouldn't be there if I had had to look everything up. -phma

In both cases, I think that's fine (though if disagreement emerged on a point related to the article on your father I think it would be appropriate to disclose your relationship to him), and I don't think this rule should (or does as presently worded) prevent that. My proposed rule was specifically aimed at vanity pages, and I think as formulated is quite enough to stop them without being taken any more broadly, I like the analogy of self-nomination --Robert Merkel 05:46, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I'd like to make that explicit, given that some folks (Daniel Quinlan) dislike not only "self-aggrandisement", but also "fanaticism", and this could get very broad... Martin 15:55, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I think we do want to be careful about how far we go here. I edited two articles for which I have some self-interest, I think those edits were okay, but then again, maybe it would have been better to let someone else make even those changes (I am the former chairperson of Linux Standard Base and co-founder/chairperson of the Free Standards Group). Daniel Quinlan 10:56, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

The basic idea seems sound, but I think it should be narrow. For example, I added "poet" to the article on John M. Ford. I know him very casually, and I know he writes poetry because I have a chapbook of his work. If, at some point, someone writes an article about someone I'm close to, I'll do my best to be fair, but I'll also use my knowledge to check for accuracy. For that matter, if I ever become famous, and there's an article about me, I'm going to make sure that it doesn't get basic facts (like date and location of birth) wrong. Vicki Rosenzweig

I agree with most of what has been said. I think there are two main principles.

1. Authors should not create or expand articles that may be perceived as self-promotion.

2. Authors should recuse themselves from content disputes where they have a conflict of interest, such as articles about themselves, their employer, or some other organization where they are heavily involved.

In time #2 may well become the more important principle since it is the one more likely to be encountered as the 'pedia grows in distribution and influence.

Kat 21:33, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Inserting via edit conflict (my thoughts do overlap with yours): I'm still in favor of an outright NO on everything that smells of self-promotion. The difficult point is how to formulate as a policy what is a quite simple rule in itself: be honest and modest, don't consider yourself too important, don't annoy, don't brag. Most people understand and follow that rule, but how can it be made into a tool to wield against those who don't? A few thoughts on this:

Don't write articles about yourself, your accomplishments, and people and things that you have a (financial, emotional, whatever) interest in. It's okay to give someone else the facts who can insert them (preferably after fact-checking), but don't insert them yourself.

So I should only write about stuff I am not interested in? That sounds very boring. Angela

Abstain from editing such articles whenever possible. If you must correct errors or add necessary material to such articles, clearly state your sources ("- published here and there; - personal knowledge; - Google says:")
Include conflict of interest statement. As with every scientific journal, it should be mandatory that people state every possible conflict of interest when contributing to articles they could be biased about.

Some people may not want to admit where they work, so would not want to include such a statement if they edited a page about their place of work. Angela

Be aware of subtle forms of bias (like selecting information, presenting information to persons who suport your views, etc.).
Don't even try to assume you can be neutral about things that concern yourself. Accept the judgement of others (knowledgeable and honest others, that is).
If somebody calls your contributions "self-advertising", "self-promotion" or "vanity page", it's not improbable that they are. If a majority of the contributers involved agree on such a judgement, it's not probable that they conspire against you.

These are just preliminary thoughts and I'd welcome any discussion. It seems clear that if somebody absolutely wants to push their views, perhaps using dirty tricks, it may take a real lot of work for others to prevent it. But since a Wiki is built on mutual trust perhaps even more that on mutual control, we could make it clear what's acceptable and what is not, and trust that Wikipedia spirit will prevail. Kosebamse 21:40, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Don't write articles about yourself, your accomplishments, and people and things that you have a (financial, emotional, whatever) interest in.

Abstain from editing such articles whenever possible

I think that covers everything I write for Wikipedia! All that'd be left would be a bit of light copyediting and clicks of the "random page" button.

Leaving that aside, though, I agree with the spirit of the rest of what Kose is saying... not least because it's stuff we should be doing anyway. Like, cite your sources - we should be doing that anyway, but it's especially important for auto-biographical stuff. Similarly for the rest. So a page that went along those lines, I think I could support, if it was well written.

We also need guidance for people working on articles where other contributors have a personal stake. Like, remember that the person you're working with may be especially sensitive to criticism, etc... Martin 23:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. Let's not confuse firm policy with behavioural guidelines. Keep it minimal, IMO. --Robert Merkel 23:16, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Of course, everybody writes about the things they are interested in. The difficulty lies in defining what is a legitimate, honest interest (say, your hobbies, your professional knowledge) and what is not. I know self-advertising when I see it. But how to define it? Kosebamse 04:37, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I totally support this new policy, and vote to make it official. Hopefully this will help with future cases of self-centered self-advertisement. MB 22:05, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

I didn't think there was an agreed policy yet, so what exactly are you supporting? If Kosebamse's suggestions are adhered to, you would have to stop editing Drexel University for example. Angela

I am supporting it as it is currently written, I have yet to commment on other additions. But since your brought it up. I disagree with his statement:

"Don't write articles about yourself, your accomplishments, and people and things that you have a (financial, emotional, whatever) interest in."

I have an interest in Computer Science, does this mean I can't edit articles about Computer Science? If everyone abstained from editing articles they were interested in, then we wouldn't have much to edit. As far as Drexel University goes, I go there, and if you look at my additions, they have been matter of fact additions backed up by sources, so I don't see the compairison. I didn't include anything auto-biographical in the Drexel University article. So, I have to agree with someone above, this should be kept narrow, just not too narrow that it would be ineffective. MB 22:32, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

When I have edited articles that I didn't include anything autobiographical in, some of them have been quickly and sharply attacked as "advertizing," "self-promotion," &c. There were some legitimate targets for such criticism, but it reached a completely absurd level, "Internet in art" even being described as one of my pages. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:22, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I was in no way criticising your edits of Drexel University. I just used that as an example of what would happen if this policy is made too narrow. Angela

Let's wait - I think we can do much better than the current version of this article, and there's more freedom for folks to improve a policy page while it's still unofficial. Martin 23:02, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Martin, what else do you want to add? There does seem to be agreement on the thrust of the policy as current written. There is substantial opposition to extending it more broadly. I believe that it is expressed clearly (though of course I'm happy if somebody can word it more clearly). --Robert Merkel 23:13, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're talking about. See my comment. --Robert Merkel 23:16, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I removed the list of examples from the policy page. It adds nothing to clarifying the policy, and makes us look like hypocrites, when in fact the articles listed were created before the policy existed.

If the person who added the examples was trying to make a point that we *are* hypocrites. it's a fair question people should keep in mind when creating any new articles about Wikipedia-related projects - is this really worthy of an encyclopedia entry? If not, put it in another namespace.

Ahh, I've been rumbled. See below. Martin 10:35, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As for Boyer and Smarandanche (sorry if I spelt his name wrong), well, this policy isn't retrospective. --Robert Merkel 23:00, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Of course the policy can be retroactive. We're writing an encyclopedia, not prosecuting criminals. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:04, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd be a bit pissed off if I put a whole bunch of work into fixing Florentin Smarandache and Daniel C. Boyer (which I have) only for someone to delete it because of a policy that didn't exist when I did so. Might not be prosecution, but it'd sure feel like punishment. :-(

Martin, there's an expression: don't throw good money after bad. It means, just because you wasted resources on a bad investment, it doesn't mean you should keep investing on it because of your prior investment. Daniel Quinlan 09:10, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

It was a good investment: it improved the quality of Wikipedia. Martin 10:45, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Future articles only? Please? Martin 23:28, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There was a time when we had no policy on advertising or original research, and someone submitted an article that was merely one or the other; the article was deleted, the policy was written. Granted, this was years ago, when Larry Sanger was still around. I think it's only modesty that's kept this policy from being written earlier--most people are modest enough to recognize their own obscurity, but recently some people have failed, repeatedly, and so we're having this discussion now which really shouldn't even be necessary. Koyaanis Qatsi 23:34, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

As written, I would not think that the policy would have any effect on the Boyer boondoggle, except insofar as it might lead us look askance upon any additional articles Boyer might create about his activities. Kat 03:48, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's like finding out an article you've copyedited is actually coprighted. If it's still wrong, it should be dealed with the only right way -- Deletion. --Menchi 04:34, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Retrospective application

Well, if we're going to apply this policy retrospectively, let's decide which articles it retrospectively applies to. Kat suggests that it will have no effect on the current article at Daniel C. Boyer. That's not the vibe I've been getting so far, so can I have that confirmed? Martin 10:35, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If this policy, as written currently, was written when Boyer wrote all the articles about himself, they would have all been deleted, and the article Daniel C. Boyer would have never been created. The reason the article was created in the first place was because people didn't know the proper way to proceed, since those articles were obviously self-serving. Now, we are writting a policy regarding article written about oneself. This will help prevent the bickering that is going on at Daniel C. Boyer in the future. We can deal with retrospect later. MB 14:15, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, once again, since no one is paying attention to this, my inclusion of mention of Danielle Nierenberg of the Monmouth College Oracle's negative review of The Octopus Frets ("better left unread"). So obviously I have not been completely "self-serving." --Daniel C. Boyer 16:58, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hypocritical?

Every article ever created on Wikipedia itself - eg: Wikipedia, Wikimedia, History of Wikipedia, etc - is in direct violation of this proposed guideline. It might seem hypocritical to delete Daniel C. Boyer while keeping Wikipedia. How do people wish to proceed? Martin 10:35, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hm, difficult question. It's beyond doubt that Wikipedia has had enormous benefit from people contributing things that they are interested in. On the other hand, it seems that in some cases of deliberate misuse it may not be enough to rely on people's honesty and modesty, and mutual control.

The Boyer affair shows that 1. it's not difficult to deface Wikipedia with a rather un-encyclopedic intention, 2. it takes long discussions and much work to revert that, and 3. a policy would be helpful to shorten that process. Several arguments against deletion of Boyers edits hinge on definitions ("did he create this or that page? No he didn't, so we should not delete it" etc.). It would help if we could say "well he didn't create it, but he used it for purposes contrary to Wikipedia's principles and policies, so we are on the safe side to delete".

It's obvious that we can't say (as I naively suggested above) "don't edit things that you have a personal interest in". But IMO it is necessary to define what degree of interest and what kind of interest is acceptable. From the discussions it seems to emerge that with an article about yourself you are possibly too biased: strong personal interest may be enough to say: hands off. But what about other interests?

Furthermore, I would still be happy to find a way of formalizing what defines self-promotion and the like. I know it when I see it, but it would help do have a better definition than that so we can use it for a policy. Kosebamse 14:06, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not a difficult question: Daniel C. Boyer is and always be one person (currently a self-congratulatory one); wikipedia is and always has been nearly anyone who wants to participate (there are some noted exceptions). So someone from Britannica or Encarta could easily come along and adjust the Wikipedia articles to reflect his/her own view of the situation, and provided it's done from the NPOV, the contributions will stay. Obviously degrees of enthusiasm for wikipedia vary among its members, while Boyer's degree of enthusiasm for himself seems constant. Koyaanis Qatsi 15:57, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

... and other people can come along and edit Boyer's contributions. And they do. Yet people still bitch about it. Why are they not bitching about wikimedia? I still think it's totally hypocritical for people to say in one breath that no serious encyclopedia would allow auto-biography... and in the second breath we have a number of auto-biographical articles on Wikipedia and related subjects. How are we any better than Boyer? Martin 20:38, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Because working on wikipedia is hardly central to most wikipedians' self-concept, whereas being Daniel C. Boyer is certainly central to Boyer's self-concept. The vested interest is considerably less, and the willingness to concede criticisms considerably greater. Koyaanis Qatsi 21:22, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For most people being themselves is central to their self-concept. I really don't understand what point you are trying to make here. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:17, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm unsurprised by that. It was a clarification of my point two spots above, about the difference between being one person writing about oneself and being many people with many different interests writing about a loosely-affiliated group. Koyaanis Qatsi 16:32, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm.... you're right. If someone adds something critical to Wikipedia, I've got no problem... if someone created a critical article on Martin Harper, then that'd feel a lot different. Ok, I retract the suggestion. Martin

I clarified my post - I think you maybe got the wrong end of the stick? Martin 14:36, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No, I think I got you right but may have generalized my thoughts a little. Kosebamse 15:22, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Two points: (1) I don't think material one does research about should be excluded -- if one is an expert (in an academic sense) on a topic, one should give his or her knowledge to wikipedia. Other could NPOV it. Of course, everybody is an expert in hisself/herself, but not in an academic or at least semi-academic sense. One shouldn't write about things one is mainly emotinally interested in (like one self, lovers, crazing fandom), but one should write about things one is mainly "professionally" interested in, does research into or knows much because it's ones field of work or hobby. (2) I think there should be a mention of the user page on the new guideline, a la "If you want to put information about yourself on wikipedia, do it on your user page.". I'm not sure, but I think I haven't seen it. -- till we *) 14:28, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)

Amount of discussion

I'm interested when Kosebamse says "it takes long discussions and much work to revert that" - I don't see that. I merged all the Boyer articles into one, and the discussion needed basically amounted to me saying "I want to do this - objections?", ignoring Boyer's objection as self-interested, and then doing it. Similarly, I removed links to Boyer's article from a bunch of articles, and did so with no discussion at all.

The reason that the deletion of certain redirects, and the proposed deletion of Daniel C. Boyer has caused so much discussion is largely because there are a range of competing views on the subject. That's just a side-effect of Wikipedia's consensus-based model: all systems of government have weaknesses. Martin 14:36, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sure, and I don't have a problem with that. To me it looked like it was a great amount of discussion in the past few days and I hope we can distill that discussion into a policy to make things easier in the future. Kosebamse 15:22, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Put it on your User Page

Hey folks, I've been reading this debate and it doesn't seem that people have brought this up very often: why don't we just move the article to Boyer's userpage? I personally am I shameless self-promoter, but I would never put information on my achievements in a wikipedia article. Instead, I have put my self-promotion on an external page that I link to from my own userpage Nelson.

Since some wikipedians might not have an external page where they can brag about themselves, it is fine to brag about your activities on your userpage, perhaps making a subpage for each play you write, etc. Then, if people want to link to your stuff, they can make links from wikipedia articles to your userpage, where you can edit and update your own information without worrying about NPOV. The fact that it is on your userpage tells visitors that it is inherently POV, but at least it's only one degree of POV, and it is therefore easy to filter the slant out.

If a wikipedian DOES get suddenly famous, then perhaps at some point people will want to create formal articles paralleling the user space articles. But until there is a community of people with an urge to create articles, I think people like Boyer and myself should do self-promotion on their userpages, and people wanting to support that self-promotion should link to the userpages from the articles. --Nelson 18:18, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This suggestion is somewhat problematic as there is already a User:Daniel C. Boyer that is somewhat self-promotional. Your argument really is for the deletion of Daniel C. Boyer --Daniel C. Boyer 19:22, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I guess so, but I'm also suggesting that the userpage be considered more of a genuine article in this case, or perhaps subpages dedicated to your individual works. If enough people link to your personal material, then perhaps you need a real article, but until then I'm suggesting that you move all of your material to your userpage somehow. In other words, perhaps you should edit your userpage to be more article-y, with the recognition that people may use it as an article? Or perhaps have the top be article-y, with more bloggy stuff at the bottom? Oh ick, please refer to my shorter and more coherent post at Talk:Daniel C. Boyer/move to user:. --Nelson 20:10, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No. User pages are for the purposes of working on Wikipedia. They are not pseudo-articles, or another venue to advertise yourself. Link to your own site elsewhere if you want to do that. --Robert Merkel 00:52, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criteria_for_Inclusion_of_Biographies -- Kat 22:19, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The current meta page says: It is disputed whether this rule should be retroactively enforced.. Are articles that have been around longer more encyclopedic or do we just give special treatment to older Wikipedians? Daniel Quinlan 21:06, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, articles that have been around longer are more encyclopedic, as a general rule, throughout Wikipedia. That's one consequence of the constant improvements. If people hadn't been working on Daniel C. Boyer for some time already, then it would make more sense to enforce these rules there. But they have. -- Toby Bartels 21:42, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think they may be more factual and more neutral, but I disagree that they must be more encyclopedic. They may be more encyclopedic in proportion because non-encyclopedic ones have already been deleted or otherwise dealt with, but it does not follow that because an article predates the policy that it should remain because it is probably okay. Daniel Quinlan 21:50, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

So what's the point in this policy then? If people can write neutrally, what does it matter if they write about themselves? Please lets not rush into another policy on the basis of an argument over a single user (Boyer). We've got the NPOV policy, why do we need any more? --Camembert

If you read the talk above, it is argued that one can not be neutral about themselves. Which is of course true. Therefore this is just an extension of the NPOV policy. MB 15:56, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Well, maybe it isn't possible to be neutral about oneself, but it's possible to write about oneself in a neutral way. Anyway, if this is intended to be an extension to NPOV, shouldn't it be on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? --Camembert

Camembert, you say it's possible to write about oneself in a neutral way. It may be possible in theory, but how could anybody verify that something you write about yourself is neutral? When it comes to neutrality it's better to err on the side of caution and assume that the neutrality of somebody's autobiography is difficult or impossible to verify. Why doesn't Britannica allow, say, Tony Blair to write about Tony Blair? Their reasons are good enough for Wikiepdia, too. Kosebamse 20:35, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm absolutely in favour of only allowing stuff that can be verified, so if something can't be verified it doesn't matter who wrote it, it shouldn't be in the article. We're different from Britannica in that they can employ whoever they like to write their articles, whereas we have to make do with whoever decides to write them - I wouldn't encourage people to write about themselves, but if they provide verifiable information, I don't think we should delete it (there have been a small number of decent autobiographical articles, incidentally, but I'm afraid I can't remember what they were).

That said, I can appreciate the thinking behind this policy: how about instead of the rather stern and inflexible "If you create a new article about yourself, or something you are responsible for, it will be listed on votes for deletion and deleted after a period of one week" we simply "discourage" people to write about themselves? --Camembert

I proposed having guidelines - including that, but also things like - when writing about subjects close to your heart, pay epecially close attention to NPOV, citing your sources, and allowing your information to be verified. Personally I think that's more important than the rather arbitrary rule originally proposed.

On the other hand, I can ignore the arbitrary rule at will by simply recreating any article that gets deleted because of it (assuming that it's not an article about me), because if I recreate it, then it won't be covered. So I view it as a rather meaningless affair that's a suitable bone to throw to our wiki-wolves to convince them they've achieved something.

Oops - did I say that out loud? ;-) Martin

Heh - I shall pretend not to have heard you and say nothing more on the matter ;) --Camembert

I think I'm in favour of the proposed new rule -- though I'm in two minds as to whether it's enforceable (but how enforceable are any of our other policies anyway?) At its best, it should act as guidance to newcomers that this is not a place to advertise themselves or any commercial services they may offer. When I've witnessed other people (I think it's safe to mention Isis as an example now she's gone) shamelessly promoting themselves, I admit I've been tempted to do the same, but I've restricted myself to mentioning what I do on my user page, which I feel is quite a reasonable thing to do and serves the same purpose in the long run. However, people should not be put off writing about people they know, even friends of theirs, if they happen to be worth an encyclopaedic mention -- and I think most of us are well able to judge whether that is the case. Deb 20:17, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that the first time I ever saw this be an issue was not Boyer or Sheldon Rampton, but rather Israeli attack on USS Liberty, in which Joe Meadors, a survivor of the attack, contributed much of the text. DanKeshet

We also have that User:Easterbradford fellow that is both a contributor and has a page about themself as an article at Easter Bradford that seemed to be causing a bit of a cat-fight earlier. I didn't realise he was a contributor to wiki as well as an article subject earlier BTW. quercus robur 20:27, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Making it official

Well, based on all the cases where this problem has occured, I think we should make this "policy" "official." At least this will provide somewhere to start in combating problems like this in the future, and a place to point newcomers when they need to know about our policy. So please finish any refining you wish to do, for I will be making this policy "official" within the next couple of days. MB 20:41, Aug 5, 2003 (UTC)

The wording on this policy has been completely butchered. I'll try to find some time to work on it today. MB 14:09, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

By the way, how is a policy made official? Provided that a text has gained some maturity, should it again be reviewed by the Wikipedians at large (to start the same discussions over again...)? Are there agreed-on procedures for "making official"? Kosebamse 19:13, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I assume that we just remove the text that say it isn't offical. This reminds me, it still needs some refining. Maybe I'll look into this today. ミハエル 19:38, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know of any standard way to make policy "official", but I'd suggest dropping a note to the WikiEN list alerting people to the page's existence (don't encourage them to discuss it on the list, though - just make them aware this page exists so they can discuss it here). That way, there's little chance of somebody coming along in a month and complaining they never knew the page existed. If nobody complains about the policy once you've done that, you can remove the text saying it's not official and treat is as official policy with confidence. --Camembert

Could someone other than me post this on the mailing list other than me? I would like to but do not have access to my e-mail account right now. It should probably be mentioned that the actually gramatical structure could use some refining, and help in that manner would be appriciated. I'm heading out for the weekend. See you guys next week. ミハエル (MB) 21:50, Aug 8, 2003 (UTC)

But please don't post before some further refinement - I'll add some suggestions to the text. Also, I suggest that a permanent policy be renamed Autobiographical articles and conflicts of interest to make the subject clearer, however I wouldn't move it now to avoid confusion. Kosebamse 09:31, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think it's best to keep article titles short, so that they're easy to remember and link to. Martin

Sure. Only I don't know a better title, and I believe that "Wikipedia:Autobiography" may be a little misleading (could be mistaken for an article about autobiographies). Kosebamse 11:15, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the policy, if it is interpreted as a matter of etiquette. That is, people should be strongly discouraged from starting articles about themselves and things that they are responsible for, and from editing articles on such subjects after they have been created. (I think for them to request changes on the talk page would be much better.) This is not because I think that anything they write would be shameless self-promotion. I'm sure that a lot of people would be able to write perfectly neutrally on these subjects. But the articles would inevitably end up being less trusted than other articles. Other people would always have their suspicions that maybe it was not entirely neutral. People who would ordinaryily wade in to neutralise the article might be less inclined to do so if there is a chance of getting into an edit war with the article's subject. To speak from personal experience, when Isis was around, there were a few things I wanted to change in the article about her, but I didn't, because I thought it might start a conflict. So on the whole I think the place would be more comfortable if people avoided working on articles about them and their own things.

However, I think it is ridiculous to propose deleting articles once they are here, solely on the basis of the historical accident of who created them. If an article is here, regardless of who put it here, it should be judged purely on its merits, the same as for any other article. If it is found to be about a topic that shouldn't be covered here, then delete it; if it is found to be about a topic that should be covered here, then keep it. Our aim is to build up human knowledge by adding information. To remove information just because someone has added it in a way we don't like doesn't help anybody.

Oh yes, and I think that some people are going a little over the top in saying that we shouldn't add articles on relatives, people we know, and even things that we have an interest in! I've added one of my relatives, and I think that should be okay. (He wasn't a close relative - a first cousin of my grandfather, or (more probably) only a half first cousin, if that's a valid term - and I never even met the man...) But I think we should be very careful not to add information that we only know from our own personal experience of the subject matter, and that can't be independently verified. I've slipped up there a couple of times, but hopefully I've corrected the situation now... -- Oliver P. 22:04, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The "interest in" comment has been repeated a number of times and was taken out of context from something I wrote, which admittedly may not have been particularly lucid. The intended meaning of "interest in" was more vested: an ownership interest, a political interest, anything where the author would stand to gain from the popularization of a particular topic or POV. Chrysler's marketing department shouldn't come here and make a writeup on Jeeps. The New Brunswick chamber of commerce shouldn't come here and write about tourism. I never intended to mean that people should avoid writing articles on things they find interesting, which, as has been pointed out, borders on the ridiculous. We wouldn't have very many articles then. Kat 22:17, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Well then, we can just throw in the sentence, "Other similar conflicts of interests should also be avoided." MB 22:29, Aug 6, 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I understood what Kat meant. Deb 22:30, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I thought she might have meant that, but I decided to go with the other interpretation, just because it was funnier. Terrible, I know. I'll give myself a slap on the wrist. -- Oliver P. 23:18, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Even on this narrower definition, I think it is still problematic. Suppose a historian comes here who has written a book about the medieval history of France. I would say that having him or her write about medieval France in Wikipedia would be one of the best things we could get, but according to this definition of the policy it would be forbidden (interest in Medieval France could lead to enlarged sales for his book). Likewise, a homosexual would not be allowed to write about homosexuality (because he has interest in the POV that homosexuality is okay).

I don't think that the Chrysler marketing department should be writing about jeeps, but I do think that there's plenty of room for individual Chrysler employees to do so. As long as they realize their risk of POV is probably higher than those of others. Andre Engels 08:00, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Wording

Can someone try to clean up the wording? I do not believe that a policy can be promulgated effectively while at the same time the possible silliness of said policy is expounded upon. I changed this once before but the original wording is back. The wording is rather defeatist and weak in other areas as well.

Kat 12:18, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Examples

Well, Esther Goldberg was created by anon IP 68.16.134.146, which is a US IP, but I don't see the evidence that it was Goldberg... Easter Bradford was certainly self-created. Whether Daniel C. Boyer was self-created is disputed: Tim Starling claims to have created it (see talk:Daniel C. Boyer archives), but some disagree with his version of events. Martin

re: Goldberg -- Upon seeing the content, I believed that it is most plausible to believe that Goldberg created the page, and there is no evidence to the contrary.

On seeing the content, and other content contributed by this IP to other pop culture articles, I think it is most plausible that it is one of the aprox. six billion people who do not play Goldberg. *shrug* Martin

re: Boyer -- I believe that Starling's role in the creation of the Boyer page is beside the point, since there is a reasonably wide consensus that nobody would have cared if there was only a brief, independently written, factual article on Boyer, which is probably all that Starling ever intended. The ongoing dispute stems from material Boyer had added after Starling created the page.

These claims keep surfacing, and yet I would like to challenge anyone to reveal information I added to the article that was not factual, and reiterate that the bulk of the excessively long article about me was caused by someone else's merging of The Octopus Frets, The Tailgating Spinster, &c., which was hardly my idea. My chief changes to Daniel C. Boyer were in the areas of linking, correcting false or misleading information, and mentioning that The Tailgating Spinster was dedicated to the memory of Keiko Ann. These claims are very misleading, to say the least. --Daniel C. Boyer 00:39, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So, I think it remains a valid example, and particularly one on the importance of discouraging additions to an article by its subject, even when the article was created by others.

Ahh - it wasn't clear to me that this was the point of your example - but I see your point. Martin

To paraphrase Wales, people should have enough of a sense of propriety to refrain from writing here about themselves. I believe that two of the three examples listed above demonstrate that we have already suffered enough of a decline of civility that this is not the case. Disallowing such articles as a matter of policy would improve the overall quality of the encyclopedia, and more importantly, would eliminate the need for a cumbersome decisionmaking process to be invoked for each one.

The edit war over Easter Bradford seems to me no different to similar edit wars over, say, Wagner. Bradford has not participated in the edit war, has not edited the article since 15 Oct 2002, and has never edited the talk page.

The animated discussion over Daniel C. Boyer seems to me no different from that of other cases where some people are trying to delete content that some other people want to keep.

I think you're mistaking correlation and cause, to be honest - and there's a reporting bias in that controversial articles are more memorable. Martin

Biographical articles

Is the a "List of articles about persons that has been edited by the person himself" :-)? If not, can anyone give me a few examples of pages that has been edited by the persons described in the page? I know there are some. BL 05:43, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Mmm, let's see. Daniel C. Boyer, of course, K. Kay Shearin (which has later been blanked because User:Isis wanted it to be removed), Daniel Alston (which has been moved to the user space), Larry Sanger (moved to the user space).. not many, really, and most of them didn't stay in the article space for long.—Eloquence 06:39, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Since you're asking directly I suppose we'd better add Jim Duffy. Although he likes to hide it he's probably the most famous Wikipedian, for reasons other than Wikipedia itself. -- Tim Starling 12:36, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Easter Bradford. There is a dispute under way now. Another example of the sort of distraction and unproductive discussion these sort of pages engender.-- Kat 21:58, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Arguments and sources

I have problems with proposed guidelines #4 and #5. To me, not being neutral is not enough reason to forbid someone from engaging in a controversy. In almost all cases where there is a controversy, there are people involved who are not neutral. I would even say that that is usually how controversies start: Someone sees an article and does not agree with it. Usually the person who does not agree is not someone neutral, but someone with an opposite POV. They try to improve it, someone else thinks they have overdone it, and bingo. Controversies don't occur on subjects that people are neutral about.

As for #5: citing one's sources often is hard for such a subject. One has heared, read, experienced much about the subject, and might well be able to just write about it without getting any sources involved. I recently wrote an article about Cantor's diagonal method for the Dutch Wikipedia. I am a mathematician and the diagonal method is my favorite piece of mathematics, so one might well say that it is a "subject close to my heart". I have read about it in various books, but none of them were at hand as I wrote my article. If asked for sources, I would not know which to mention, and even if I did, might have to take a 500 km train ride to just get the title and author. Andre Engels 10:47, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

New Rule: No More Silly Rules

There's an oft-quoted principle of ajudication that is very applicable here: Hard cases make bad law. I've watched various online communities ruined by well-intentioned policies, and now Wikipedia is moving in that same direction. -- NetEsq 19:14, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'm leaning in this direction. I now feel that requiring content to be verifiable and informative is a better, more general, approach to the issue.Martin 23:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Can I add a page about myself in the Wikipedia?

And I don't mean a user page...

I've wondered this since I discovered Wikipedia a week ago. (What a great place!)

Yes, I admit up front that this question sounds vain, so let's agree on that, shall we, and move to the question:

Can I place a NPOV biography about myself, my life and my achievements in the Wikipedia? Is it done? Is there anything to stop me (policy-wise, I mean)?

Thanks for making this such an addictive and ever-exciting place.

-- Paul Klenk

Are you just some random guy who likes to edit Wikipedia? Then no :) If you have the barest amount fame, you could attempt it, and thereby start months of discussion about whether or not you are famous enough...but I don't know if it's worth the effort :) Adam Bishop 22:21, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, do I run into people in NYC who recognize me from my singing in the subway? Yes. Was I the subject of nationwide chat-room discussions when I rallied each evening for a month in Times Square on a live Web camera? Yes. Don't know if that's famous enough for you, but it might spur discussion, as you said. But my real question is, what's to stop me policy-wise? Thanks for your answer. -- Paul Klenk

Adam, I just researched you and discovered you're an administrator. Congratulations. So I think it's safe to say that your answer to me is borderline authoritative. (You can still answer me regarding policy, though). In closing I should say that, before you use your power to get women, first you use it to get 'respect,' THEN you can move to the women. :) -- Paul Klenk

Ah, I don't know about authoritative, there are dozens of admins who do more admin-related things than I do :) There actually is a Wikipedia:Don't create articles about yourself policy, though. Adam Bishop

I would recommend that you read Wikipedia:Autobiography, have a look at the case study of Daniel C. Boyer (assuming you have a week to spare to read it) and note that Jimbo said on the mailing list "it is a social faux pas to write about yourself" [2]. Angela 22:49, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop you from creating an article about yourself, but there's also nothing to stop someone else from blanking, or deleting, or replacing your text with "Paul Klenk is a nobody." :-) So whatever you add has to be agreeable to the 8,000(?) other Wikipedia editors, and to date, nobody has been able to type fast enough to ensure survival of their material if even 10 other editors don't want it there. I have some accomplishments of my own, but somebody else will have to create the article about me; if not one of those thousands of editors thinks the article is needed, that's a pretty strong hint. Stan 22:53, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Stan, if those 10,000 Google hits are about you - you probably do deserve an article. Although two people have said that about me and I definitely don't! Angela 23:32, Oct 18, 2003 (UTC)

Heh, it's what comes of spending years with open source - take away all the source code online, the numbers are a little smaller! :-) Stan 03:16, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, all for your answers -- I think I know what I need and we can lay this question to rest. Kindest regards, Paul Klenk 23:02, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If anyone on here deserves an article, it's Jimbo. Has he affected 10,000 people? Hmmm... let me think... ;) But he's too modest to write one about himself. The main criterion used to determine whether or not you're allowed to write an article about yourself is how obnoxious you are. Albert Jacher and Daniel C. Boyer were obnoxious, so they got booted. Jim Duffy and Sheldon Rampton are kind, pleasant people, so they have articles. Florentin Smarandache was obnoxious but unfortunately very widely known so we had to include him. But he was the exception. So take my advice and act nice. -- Tim Starling 05:29, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

___

Hello Tim!

I took your advice and i am acting nice - i just stopped editing wikipedia, because there is no sense in editing anything if your work would be deleted within few hours. Is that what is expected from the only source of information about a topic? "Remain passive, because whatever you write, others would delete because they have no knowledge about the subject, so they treat your work as stupid."

I want to state, that as the Holy Prophet, i can expect that 99% of world population would be my fierce enemies who would like to kill me. I am just revealing the truth about the world, that is very much contrary to their beliefs, paradigms, points of view, religions, ideologies etc.

That is why only i am able to write objectively about myself. My enemies would like to delete all the information about me or describe me very negatively. My followers would describe me with too much positive attitude.

The other problem is that it is really hard to find any objective information about a prophet when one cannot speak himself anymore... Usually people falsify the prophets message after ones death and create quite fantastic and often very stupid "interpretations" of "what the prophet wanted to say..."

So it is hard for me to understand, why the prophet is not allowed to write himself about him and his doctrine and ideology...

Thank you anyway for the good deed that you made yourself about me and my ideas. I really appreciate it.

-- User:AlbertJacherHolyProphet 05:30, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

Paul: yes, you can, but frankly no, I really can't recommend that you do:

if you're really worthy of an entry in an encyclopedia, then surely someone else (someone you've never met) will eventually stop by here and create one. If you aren't: well, then they won't.
it's really hard to write NPOV about yourself, and taking the inevitable harsh edits or VfD character assassination can be tough too.
frankly, for every one arguable autobiographical entry, there's a hundred utterly undeserving ones. Some of these are just kids having a laugh, but there are quite a few efforts to deliberately (and in my opinion dishonestly) insert themselves into the wikipedia. This seems to be motivated either by vanity or a desire to enhance one's google pagerank. By asking this question here in such an open way you've already shown yourself to be a million miles (1.4 million km) above such pondscum, but by creating the autobiographical page you propose you risk being tarred with the same brush. I'd steer clear of such company, if I were you.

-- Finlay McWalter 23:59, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone write NPOV about themselves? IMHO, the answer is no. I suggest you add your name to the list of Requested articles, and let someone else write it. And let other people edit it. I seem to remember a South American composer who made an autobiographical article, and when other people made edits, he got upset, and a page dispute ensued. With that said, be prepared to see things written about you that you might not like, and that you might not like known to others. Kingturtle 17:18, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Writing on subjects close to your heart

Hey folks, I just wanted to ask for the community's help on this. I'm intimately involved with the Diebold issue, as a co-plaintiff in the EFF's lawsuit, and a founding member of the Swarthmore Coalition for the Digital Commons which was one of the first student pages to host the memos. I'd like to expand the Diebold article to reflect the recent events that my friends and I have been involved in, and I'd like to fill out the "wishful thinking" link to an SCDC article that I found on that page. However, I want to be careful about stepping over the line of writing about myself and rehashing the Boyer controversy. Could people look at the sources and tell me whether either of these actions would be a good idea? I've read Wikipedia:Auto-biography, and I think the first case falls under the acceptable category of "writing on subjects close to your heart", and I think that filling in the empty link to an SCDC article may be borderline acceptable as I found the link already in existence, but I would like some feedback. --Nelson 04:45, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It sounds like you are very involved, well beyond it being something close to your heart — I mean, you're a co-plaintiff. I would personally recommend not adding any first-person information and stick to just making simple corrections (that do not rely on first-person information) to obvious mistakes. If you want to add something more, mention it on the talk page and let someone else do the work. Daniel Quinlan 05:25, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

Hm, it is indeed true that I am super-close to the issue, and that suggesting changes on the talk page may be the best way to go. However, if you look at Wikipedia:Auto-biography, the example they give for something "close to your heart" and acceptable is an athlete or official actually involved in the Olympic Games writing about them. At what point does it cross the line from being close to your heart to being actually about you? The athletes and officials sound pretty close to the Games. It would seem to me to be the difference between an event that involves you and an event that IS you. So, maybe it might be OK to write about a march on Washingon that you helped organize, but not all about how your latest scientific discovery saves the world. Or am I missing the point? What is the reason for the Auto-biography policy again? --Nelson 07:55, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that if you happen to have made the "latest scientific discovery saves the world", there'll be tons -- and I mean tons -- of Wikipedians rushing to describe that discovery for you. Some of the most exciting news have became articles that way, as I've found thru Current events. Auto-biographies and the likes easily lead to POV, no matter now hard you try not to. Hey, it's brain. We don't know why it works that way! (I mean, I don't.) --Menchi 08:02, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

N.B. But I agree with Daniel's advice. Talk about it on the Talk page (mm.. the pun), and somebody who knows enough about the matter can go on and do something with it. Good method indeed. --Menchi 08:05, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I couldn't write neutrally about myself (well, I guess it would be neutral, since all praise of me really is objective and all criticisms of me really are invalid). --Charles A. L. 18:35, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Also, as a co-plaintiff, Wikipedia policies aside, you might want to think carefully before you comment on the issue. IANAL though. -- Pakaran 05:29, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good point. It seems that simple statements of fact should not be an issue, but thank you for reminding me to think about that. --Nelson 07:55, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To me the Diebold article seems POV, but I can't put my finger on why. Have you considered listing it in Peer review? Andrewa 08:54, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hm, now that you mention it, it does seem POV, probably because all of the links at the bottom are to websites and news stories that talk about the recent scandal, and all of the comments are like, "critics say that Diebold sucks". There is also no information about their ATMs and other things that they make. On the other hand, the scandal is why Diebold is in the news, and the primary reason why people care about the company. Note that there is no article on Avante or any of Diebold's other competitors. This is of course not an argument for deleting the info on the controversy, I actually wanted to add more information on the latest developments (Wikipedia is not paper), but it is an argument for writing a less narrowly-focused article. --Nelson 05:43, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Declaring outside interests?

I am doing some editing on Good News Translation and American Bible Society. In the past, I have donated to the American Bible Society. Should I declare this fact on the talk pages for each article and/or my user page so that other Wikipedians (and general users) don't get the idea that my edits are biased because I have donated to the ABS? --hoshie 08:22, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it unless a controversy comes up. There's plenty of people here with outside interests, many much more "conflict of interest"-like than the one you cite. It's always good to look for your own biases though and try to make sure they're not showing through in the article. --Delirium 08:44, Nov 26, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds like a good and ethical example to set. I know that many people think of Christians as bad people without morals, so I think it's especially appropriate for you to challenge these prevailing stereotypes. Perhaps you'll be known "The Good Christian", and who knows, maybe we can hope that sometime in the future only academics will remember the original, negative connotation of "Christian", and that the word "Christian" primarily will make people think of "The Good Christian" instead, the one person who did the right thing when all others, with better reputations, did nothing or did evil. Oh, wait, never mind, that's "Samaritan" and "Good Samaritan" I'm thinking of. Still, it sets a good example to reveal your biases. orthogonal 09:18, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would judge a NPOV by what you write, not by anything else. But it is always interesting to know who people are. Anjouli 09:52, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Declaring interests again

I also have a potential conflict of interests I'd like advice on. I was scanning List of English language poets for red links, looking for articles I'd like to write. I found one that has been there for seven months (long before I started wiki'ing) that I'd very mucg like to write and that I think would be worth having. Problem is, the poet in question is a friend of mine. Should I go ahead or leave it for someone else to do? Bmills 09:53, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would give it a try if I was you. You may have better insight than most. If you are not impartial, somebody will soon edit it. Anjouli 11:58, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't see why there is any reason why it would be impartial to list just the biographical facts. Someone else can add qualitative aspects. -- Viajero 12:01, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll think about it for a day or two and see what I can do that avoids judgements but isn't a stub. Bmills 12:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If someone else has listed this person as a poet but failed to write even a stub, I think you're still on good ground. It's a shame they didn't create the stub and an excellent example of why stubs are helpful.

IMO this is an excellent chance to get important and accurate information perhaps not available elsewhere. We should grab it. But certainly, be conservative regarding assessment of their work. Others will add this. As to listing their major publications to date, do!

Check the article with the person by all means, but remember it's your contribution, not theirs. You understand what Wikipedia is and isn't. They might not. So as to the accuracy and completeness, get their OK. As to what goes in and how it is phrased, you may need to be firm. Good luck. Andrewa 01:07, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Article now at Tom Raworth. I did not talk with him and kept it very short and factual. I may come back to it again. Thanks for all the advice, and I'd appreciate any suggestions for improvement. Bmills 09:42, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Another proposed guideline

Think twice before linking an article to a website you own. This is a conflict of interests similar to authoring an article about yourself. It could also be considering a form of advertising.

How does something like that sound? I'm sure it wouldn't be strictly enforced, and it's probably not an issue very often, but I've noticed a case of it recently. I think it might be helpful to have a community consensus on whether this is discouraged. Isomorphic 10:21, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Linking to Wikipedians' articles could allow for conflicts with NPOV policy. Dysprosia 10:26, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I support guidelines such as the one above: what I object to is the current page, which is all do not, do not, do not. Martin 18:18, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The problem with "guidelines" is that they quickly elide into authoritarian laws, rules, and commandments, and the mere *mention* of enforcement -- i.e., "I'm sure it wouldn't be strictly enforced" -- reminds me that most proposed guidelines do more harm than good. Accordingly whenever I have been in a position to "enforce" guidelines, I have refrained from doing so, and referred to the guidelines that I have promulgated as "suggested protocols." Even so, carefully choosing my words has seldom prevented authoritarian control freaks from citing my suggested protocols as if they were the Word of God, etched on stone tablets. In this regard, the guideline that should be first and foremost among Wikipedians is that people should think for themselves. Now, if only we can find a way to enforce that guideline. -- NetEsq 23:02, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That's why this is phrased as a suggestion to people. I'm trying to get a community consensus that this is something to be discouraged, not to make a hard-and-fast rule. The point is to make people aware of the issue. Besides, as with the auto-biography issue... if your site is appropriate and you really want it linked, you can always ask someone else to do it. Isomorphic 23:38, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

<< That's why this is phrased as a suggestion to people. I'm trying to get a community consensus that this is something to be discouraged, not to make a hard-and-fast rule. >>

For those who understand, no guideline is necessary; for those who don't, no rule will suffice.

<< The point is to make people aware of the issue. >>

Do thoughtful contributors really need to be reminded that shameless self-promotion is wrong? I don't think so. Rather, in reviewing the commentary of those seeking to make "hard-and-fast" rules, I think it's pretty clear that the only people who lack awareness of the relevant issues are those who think that other people need to be told what to think, say, and do. -- NetEsq 04:06, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

We already have the Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising which would seem to cover this issue sufficiently. Angela . 04:10, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten this proposed policy -- removed some stuff that had absolutely no place here (subjects near and dear to your heart), and turned the whole thing into a more or less NPOV compromise that should be a useful guideline without becoming a sledgehammer.—Eloquence

Some of the old material that doesn't match the article title could be resurrected into a broader article. Something like "Possible conflicts of Interest" or "Personal Involvement." That would allow it to cover autobiography in addition to similar issues like writing articles about friends, writing articles about events you participated in, linking to your own website or to material elsewhere on the web that you authored, etc. Isomorphic 13:06, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A curveball

A theoretical question: If the someone writing an article about themselves was someone prominent, would they be allowed to do so (if they kept in mind NPOV)?

Also, in the same case, could they put a link to their user page in the article?

Not saying that I know anyone who fits these criteria, but what if?

-- Emperorbma 16:55, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think this has been covered, but to quickly summarise:

it depends on whether they are creating an article or editing an existing one - creating a new one would attract considerably more scrutiny - are they really "prominent" or just nobodies with a taste for self-promotion?
There are issues with verifiability.
From experience, a lot of the people who've contributed to their own articles have not been able to keep in mind NPOV, so people will be very suspicious of people editing articles about themselves.
The process of having an autobiography edited mercilessly can be quite unpleasant for both the subject and the editor.

We haven't had any household names comment on their own article yet, as far as I know, though by now I've no doubt a few would have read them. --Robert Merkel

True or false??

True or false: many un-registered Wikipedians create articles about themselves. 66.245.92.131 00:54, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This depends on how one defines "many." Does it happen often? Yes. Is it done by any significant percentage of unregistered users? No. The vast majority of unregistered users don't make articles about themselves, but there are so many unregistered users that if only a few do it, then we see such articles often. Isomorphic 03:08, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedians in Wikipedia

I wonder if there is any wikipedians who has an article on him-/her-self in wikipedia? (What i mean is an valid article and NOT in namespace) SYSS Mouse 16:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's generally very frowned upon (and let's face it - most wikipedians are abject nobodies, hunched in the shadows in various dim hutches, unnoticed by the world) -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know of one contributor (name ommitted) who is semi-famous. Think - equivalent to a B-list actor but in a different field. An anon kept making an article on him, and he kept deleting it. I don't really know of anyone else who is deserving of an article. →Raul654 17:20, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Was this done without VfD? Isn't that an abuse of admin power? There are lots of semi-famous people out there who objectively would qualify for inclusion... would they all be granted the power to delete articles about themselves? -- Curps 18:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's Larry Sanger, though he's no longer a Wikipedian. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:52, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

There's Michael Everson aka User:Evertype — someone notable in his field who also actually contributes here. Anrion 18:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are some that I have run across. Two that I still remember Alan Cox (User:AlanCox) and Lubos Motl (User:Lumidek). Maybe not what some would term famous, but in an encyclopedic world they are. I would add that they might appreciate some privacy though, so don't go badgering them for wiki-autographs :) Dori | Talk 19:07, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

I know of a science fiction author, who has become a regular contributor, who also has an article. He's quite capable of naming himself here if he wishes. Mintguy (T) 20:57, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My userpage contains my biography, cause Im famous...at wikipedia at least and to some in Phoenix for my stunts (such as jumping off the roof of my church and into the hoops court before one of my basketball team's games). I dont know..it is YOUR user page, do what you want to as long as its not illegal. "Antonio Mr. Illegality Martin" Blah blah blah (lol) AntonioMartin

Hehe, I am just wondering how long before someone gets round to creating a List of famous Wikipedians. It is only a matter of time /yawn Sjc 06:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sheldon Rampton is the classic example of a decent honest Wikipedian with an article. We also have an article on Florentin Smarandache, who allegedly edited Wikipedia from 9 different user names in an attempt to promote his own work. Another alleged self-promoter is Peter Lynds. Luckily most Wikipedians are more modest. There's a certain user who claims it's purely coincidental that he has the same name, interests, abilities and country of origin as a semi-famous person with a Wikipedia article. Jimbo Wales has managed to stop us from writing an article on him, at least for the time being. We probably have quite a few academics who are as important as Smarandache but don't write an article on themselves for reasons of modesty. Nobody really seriously famous that I know of. -- Tim Starling 09:50, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

As everyone else is going 3rd person here, I thought I'd break the mould. I once found my name in an article as a red wikilink and I deleted it in case anyone would be foolish enough to start an article. If anyone had, I probably would have deleted it. Bmills 10:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I won't name them, but there's one user who was quite shocked to find an article on themselves. They work quite hard to keep their online name and real life separate. They restrained themselves from watchlisting the article ...

I am horrified to realise I may be slightly notable. Anyone creating an article will be taken out and shot - David Gerard 10:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You mean other than Gerard David ;-) -- Kokiri 12:18, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal articles and solution thereof

Among the votes for deletion, the most commonly encountered category is personal articles. These articles are usually by some flaky person of no true interest to a Wiki-xxx. Though seldom encountered in votes for deletion, there also exist people who are of some minor interest, but who would not always justify an article. I propose a solution for both categories.

The idea is to create a separate Wiki with unlimited (except for size) personal articles. The idea is that if you can't easily deal with them, at least categorize them into a heap where they would be harmless. The existing Wikipedia would simply redirect via creator selection option, or by speedy VfD to the personalWIKI. The personal articles would not be searchable by Wikipedia, but would available through a different Wiki name.

A variation on this is to also require personal articles to have an selectable "open date" e.g. 50 years in the future, when the article would finally be posted to the public, but held confidential to Wiki (via password) prior to that date. The idea here is that some people actually are noteworthy, and that often such people would be reluctant to publish personal information prior to their death. I recently encountered an example of this. The lady was a former professor of French, had lead an interesting life, but was otherwise little known publically. She is also very old and probably near death. An article about her would be highly appropriate, and, it would be best done with her assistance. What do you do with such an article?

I think that such future open date personal articles would tend to attract the less flaky members of society, and, would be a useful content. Perhaps such articles could be automatically forwarded to Wikipedia after the open date. Posted by User:66.44.3.205

It's ironic that this was posted by an anonymous user and that this was that user's first edit. Anyway, personally I don't think this is a great idea. Exploding Boy 15:00, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think its a good idea either "Create a separate Wiki with unlimited (except for size) personal articles." Am I reading this right: so everyone could write an article about themselves? The other part doesn't sound like a horrible idea, but too complex to implement effectively. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:19, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm in the same camp. It sounds more like a blog to me, and it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Just use one of the blog services out there, and license the content under the GFDL. Dori | Talk 16:12, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

And the beauty of it is, people can just create an account under their real name (provides searchability!), and then link to their blog from their user page. Exploding Boy 16:42, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Existing biographical articles discovered by their subjects

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What are the policies regarding editing an existing article about yourself? I know of two articles thus far which have been edited by the subject after he or she discovers the article's existence. This isn't a case of someone creating a vanity article on themselves but of someone who was notable enough for someone to have written an article on them. This sort of thing will become more common a) as the number of biographical articles on wikipedia grows and b) as use of the internet grows. Specifically, the article Kevin B. MacDonald has, of late, been edited by the professor himself and the article on Chip Berlet has recently been discovered by the journalist in question. Their interventions have been useful as far as providing missing information (such as birthdates) and correcting errors but there is, of course, a danger of the articles basically becoming autobiographies. Are there guidelines in place to deal with this? If not what guidelines should be implemented? Should there be a complete ban on individuals editing articles on themselves? should such edits require some sort of mediation before being accepted? AndyL 01:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Let's worry about it when and if it becomes a real problem. For now, common sense applies; if the subject of the article seems to be making useful and factual contributions, then there is no problem. If they actively try to turn the article into a promotional piece, their edits should be treated like any other NPOV violation. Isomorphic 21:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've been curious about this, because the article about me appeared before I began contributing here, seemingly drawn from some random necessarily short bio that I attached to my magazine articles. I've wanted to expand it, and have on occasion corrected the list of ISBNs related to my books (and recently added my headshot), but otherwise have left it alone. If I could keep it to "just the things that might appear in Who's Who" about me, would anyone object making it more of a real article instead of the crap I write about myself for columns? --Randal L. Schwartz 16:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The obvious common sense answer is that they should avoid editing the article directly, but can help a lot by adding checkable information to the talk page for uninvolved editors to add. e.g. Sheldon Rampton never touches articles about his own projects, but he does add useful stuff to the talk pages. I've added to the guideline saying so - David Gerard 11:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that's not 100% true. I believe I created the article on the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua, a nonprofit organization for which I have volunteered for many years. (Currently I'm a member of the WCCN board of directors.) I created the WCCN article in December 2002, shortly after I first heard of Wikipedia and when I was still learning how it works. I also did some editing about the Sheldon Rampton article (although I didn't create it; it already existed before I ever heard of Wikipedia). At the time I had no idea that anyone thought it might be inappropriate to create autobiographical articles or articles about a topic in which I was personally involved. Once I learned that Jimbo thought this was inappropriate, I've tried to comply, even though I personally disagree with this rule, for the following reasons:

It's unenforceable. If anyone wants to create an autobiographical article, it's easy to do so under a sockpuppet or anonymous IP. On SourceWatch, my own wiki, I've noticed several cases in which people have done exactly this. For example, we have a long puff piece about Michael Johns that it's fairly obvious was created almost entirely by Johns himself. Incidentally, Wikipedia also has an article about Michael Johns, for which Johns himself is obviously the primary author, although he's done it anonymously. On SourceWatch, we don't have a policy against autobiography, and I've never attempted to interfere with Johns' article. I see wikis as a research tool rather than as the final arbiter of interpretation on a topic, and even though Johns' article is full of self-aggrandizing rhetoric, it also pulls together a list of articles he has written that would be useful to a journalist interested in reporting about him, so I think there's more benefit than harm in letting him edit freely.
It encourages people who want to write about themselves to do so covertly rather than transparently. On SourceWatch, we tell people that anyone can edit anonymously if they prefer, but we encourage them to contribute under their own name. If they contribute to articles about themselves, there's a good chance that someone will figure it out anyway and accuse them of being sneaky. By contrast, I think the Wikipedia policy actually encourage sneakiness.
It's vague and unclear. It's obvious that the policy implies I shouldn't edit an article about myself, but does it mean I shouldn't edit an article about the Wisconsin Coordinating Council on Nicaragua? Should I also avoid editing articles about Nicaragua? What about articles on Wisconsin, where I live? Exactly how much familiarity with a topic defines the threshold at which people should disqualify themselves from writing about it?
The policy eliminates from participation the individuals who are best-informed about the topic. It's true that it no one can have a neutral point of view about themselves, but Wikipedia doesn't require that individual contributors have a neutral point of view. Rather, it strives for articles to have a neutral point of view, by synthesizing and integrating the diverse points of views of multiple individuals. In the case of the Sheldon Rampton article, I added the fact that I was born in Long Beach, California and the fact that my leaving the Mormon Church was influenced in part by Mormon feminist Sonia Johnson -- facts that are not widely known and that I don't think are particularly self-serving. I think the addition of these facts improved rather than hurt the article. I also added the sentence about criticism of me by Rick Berman, who calls me a "self-anointed watchdog," "scare-monger," "reckless" and "left-leaning." (My expertise about myself includes the fact that I'm familiar with criticisms of myself.) I mention this sentence in particular because it demonstrates that autobiography doesn't inevitably lead to puffery and self-serving edits. I put in the sentence about Rick Berman's comments because Jimbo argued on Wikien-L that the Sheldon Rampton article didn't contain any criticisms of me. I invited people to add some, but no one did, so I decided to add some myself.

In some ways, I could argue that the articles about myself are weaker because I've refrained from editing them. For example, the article about PR Watch includes a section describing "Sheldon Rampton's contributions to SourceWatch" that is pretty ridiculous. The two contributions which it mentions were added by a disgruntled SourceWatch user who got angry and started vandalizing our site after I challenged his whitewash of the Tienanmen Square massacre as "perjorative phrase [sic] used by Western media to describe the June 4, 1989 effort by the People's Republic of China to regain control of the main plaza of its capital city." This individual then began looking for opportunities to attack everything I wrote, so he latched on to an article I wrote about a tobacco-funded think tank in which I stated, "a tobacco-funded think tank would ever go so far as to describe smoking as a civic duty." My critic (who chose to remain anonymous, even as he attacked me publicly) tried to interpret this as a culturally insensitive statement, on the grounds that some Caribbean and Native American cultures regard smoking as a religous sacrament. Obviously I wasn't referring to Caribbean and Native American cultures when I wrote about a right-wing think tank headquartered in Washington, DC, so this criticism is a rather forced point at best. The main thing, though, is that these particular topics are very peripheral to the main thrust of what I've written on SourceWatch and elsewhere, so it's rather bizarre that they are listed as though they somehow typify my writings. I don't find them offensive, just strange, and if I were editing the article about myself, I'd either delete these examples altogether or replace them with something more representative.

Having said all this, I do agree that there are potential problems if people edit articles about themselves. If you look at the history of the Sheldon Rampton article, you'll find a couple of instances where people who don't like my writings have been deliberately antagonistic in the hope that they could goad me into some kind of fight. See, for example, Talk:Center for Media and Democracy, where one person declares that "Getting Rampton's goat is just icing on the cake." I don't want to waste my time on that kind of pissing match, and I generally trust the broader Wikipedia community to strive for fairness, so even if self-editing were encouraged here, I probably wouldn't do much of it. --Sheldon Rampton 10:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The spirit of wikipedia

The page sounds reasonable enough, but I created a page on myself for purely my own benefit that was highly unlikely anyone else would see (except for people with the same name doing a google search perhaps). The page was there for a while and then Antaeus Feldspar found it and it has now been scheduled for deletion. Wikipedia isn't what you'd call a fun place, I seem to have run-ins periodically with these sorts of people. Technically they're following the rules but they seem to target everything that falls outside of their inflexible guidelines with extreme predjudice. Diceman 19:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The key phrase in your comment is "purely for my own benefit." Things you are writing purely for your own benefit should be done on your own website, or on your user page. The main namespace is for encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is very open, but Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Isomorphic 21:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article about my company? Wikipedians for hire?

Hi All,

(I posted on the request for pages talk area, but figured a cross-post to this talk page would be ok.)

I work for a US-based non-profit that does reproductive health work in Asia, Africa & Latin America. We don't have an article about us yet, and I'm inclined not to create it myself, although that does seems to be permissible under certain circumstances and depending on a number of factors.

However, I'm also disinclined to wait for someone to happen to create it, since we're a significant enough presence in our area to justify an article on us.

Is it being done yet that Wikipedians can be "hired" to create content? Obviously, that sort of thing could raise concerns about objectivity etc, but seeing as though anything that might be written on spec would be subjected to the same editing for NPOV etc as anything else, it seems like something that could be made to work in some fashion or other.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts.

-Pfwebadmin 18:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We've long anticipated that people might do that kind of thing, but as far as I know we've never heard of of any real cases. Some Wikipedians would probably frown on it, but as long as the description stayed neutral I don't think you'd have any problem. Isomorphic 04:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I fleshed out what I'm getting at a little bit on my talk page if anyone sees this and is interested. -Pfwebadmin 20:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This looks OK to me. There might be some who'd object, but I wouldn't be one of them, and I'm usually a hard-core anti-promoter. Isomorphic 04:42, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Isomorphic. I'm wondering if there is room for a project of some sorts to help facilitate people and entities that will have to walk these Autobiography issues choosing to walk them correctly. I'm basically trying to create, on my company's discussion page and on my login's discussion page, a blueprint for how to act with respect to this sort of stuff. I wish there were a few options in somewhat a cousin vein to a license of sort that I could use there instead of having to try to create the wheel and also figure out which and how many spokes should go in it. Maybe even something that I could then get my president to sign off on being our company's official policy towards its employees' interaction with Wikipedia? Does that make sense? Strikes me that as Wikipedia and Wikipedia's relevance grow, these sorts of issues will be ever-present and increasingly important to address. Anyhoo, anyone who wants to help point out a couple opportunities for improving my 'wheel' can feel encouraged to visit my talk or my company's talk. `~:)Pfwebadmin
- As it happens, I'm planning to do a major expansion of the article on my own employer. Outside of this page, I don't think there's any guidance on Wikipedia as to how one should behave in editing article on subjects you're personally involved with. The key point is just that an article must remain neutral. The joy of Wikipedia is that even if the original article is one-sided, it can be made neutral. I would recommend sticking, as much as possible, to facts that can be verified using third-party sources. Admittedly, I don't know how closely I'll follow this myself; it's much easier to get historical information from the company itself than to try to find any third party who's written significantly on it. Isomorphic 02:59, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: Conflict of Interest

I was looking for guidance when writing about your own company, and I found this page. It doesn't answer my questions, though, so I proposed a new guideline for dealing with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. There's an analogy between writing about yourself and writing about your company, so I invite you to weigh in on my proposal. Thanks. --Yannick 03:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dispute notice?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What's the dispute that's so weighty that 'disputed' notice needs to have been there for months and months? I've removed the notice pending an actionable list here - David Gerard 11:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Question: Adding link to oneself on Wiki page of person with your name?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it OK or in poor taste to add a link to other people sharing the same name as a famous person listed in the Wikipedia? I brought this up on Talk:Tim_Regan but have not had any replies. The case in point is the page of the American Football player Tim_Regan. I am not famous, though I do Google higher than my namesake (http://www.google.com/search?q=Tim+Regan) but it really riles me to see the page bearing my name not have any link to me at all. But it also feels like adding in a link to my homepage (http://research.microsoft.com/~timregan) at the end of his page contravenes the guidelines in the Autobiography page. What would you recommend I do. Leave it or add in a link? Dumbledad 15:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The fact that a page exists for someone who happens to have your name has nothing to do with your own notability. If the page is about someone other than you, why should it have a link about you? This is an encyclopedia, not a directory. Isomorphic 04:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Perfect Reason To Ignore/Get Rid Of This "Policy"

Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

This opinion piece in USA Today. If this "policy" wasn't in place, we wouldn't have had the negative press in that link. I'm putting it up for deletion now. karmafist 07:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that there is no evidence to show that Mr. Seigenthaler even wanted to edit "his" article himself, the negative press would have occured anyway. Edwardian 07:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It's strange to see it repeatedly argued that Seigenthaler would not have been permitted to remove libelous claims about himself. This is a guideline, not a strict policy. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 21:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- People normally won't expect a guideline to be literally followed all the time. However, they *would* expect it to be literally followed in cases that seem to be directly and intentionally addressed by it. This guideline is very specific about not editing articles about yourself; the only aspect of it which suggests otherwise is that the article mentions adding but not deletion. Most readers would interpret the spirit of the article to mean that editing an article about yourself is not allowed at all. I doubt that most readers would interpret it to mean that you can remove false claims about yourself. I'm also not convinced that either the original writer of the page or the voters meant it that way.
  (If it's really okay to remove false claims about yourself, and if the article really isn't trying to suggest otherwise, then there should be no problem with altering the article to explicitly say so, right? After all, it's not really changing the article at all.)
  And under what grounds could someone remove false claims about themselves anyway? They couldn't say the claims are false--that would be original research, as pointed out in this article. They *might* be able to claim the statements are unsourced, but there are such things as inaccurate sources. Ken Arromdee 16:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  - Wikipedia is not a mechanism for correcting incorrect sources. What the sources say is what an article should say. If someone has a disagreement with what a source says about them, they should take that up with the source, not with Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  - No, subjects of articles shouldn't really be removing false claims about themselves. The problem is that while they may be knowledgeable about themselves, they aren't impartial. What if they're just trying to whitewash their own record? On the other hand, subjects of articles can and should point the errors out on the discussion page. They can also point us to sources they consider more accurate. Isomorphic 04:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

- - - Do you think it would be a good idea to put those points on the Project page? Edwardian 05:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that before putting any points on the project page we need to agree on them. Right now, just from what is said above, ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ thinks that users may remove false information about themselves while Isomorphic thinks they may not. Ken Arromdee 08:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's have some discussion about this so some sort of consensus can be reached. Although I suppose my opinion could be changed one way or the other, I think users should be advised not to add new information or remove what they believe to be false information about themselves. They should be advised to post suggestions in the article's talk page regarding what they think should be added or removed. Edwardian 08:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Hirst

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Take a look at the AFD. 4/1 voted for keep, was properly referenced, notable person. But it seems that he wrote it about himself. Managed to write it neutrally too. So it was userfied. Is that the right thing to do? I for one think not. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikepedians writing about Wikipedia

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If we agree with the general policy that people writing about themselves have a conflict of interest when it comes to being open minded, then this also applies to Seigenthaler Gate. AlMac|[[User talk:AlMac|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 08:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the autobiography rule is silly. I think that the only issue should be WP:NPOV, and otherwise I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to contribute to an article about yourself. If someone was writing a biography (which is essentially what we are doing), and they did not consult the person who they were writing about, then it would not have much credibility. Whilst it is difficult to write neutrally about yourself, some people are more able to do so than others. Similarly, when writing about *ANYTHING* that you feel passionately about (i.e. have a clue about) you will always struggle to be neutral. Therefore, there is really no reason to apply NPOV more strongly towards autobiographies than any other article.

One big factor with this is accuracy. If someone writes about themselves, or at least is consulted, or able to be consulted, then there is a much greater chance of accuracy. They will more easily be able to fix up tiny little errors that others might not know about, and can also more easily find cites to reference things.

I actually think that the Seigenthaler controversy is only a secondary example of this rule being wrong. I think that Daniel Brandt is a primary example - where the person was banned from Wikipedia for trying to write about himself. That is so awfully wrong, and has been picked up by the media.

At the end of scrutiny I don't think that this autobiography rule can stand up as having any merit whatsoever. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

an interesting wrinkle

Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There's been discussion above on the situation where a clearly-notable person 'discovers' his own Wikipedia article, written by others, and wants to start editing it. But what about the case of a long-time wikipedian who eventually becomes famous/notable and gets written about? He/she will be in a dilemma: it will be ethically inappropriate to edit the article without disclosing his/her personal interest; yet if the user values the anonymity of all his/her past edits he/she may not want to identify him/herself. Just a little brain-teaser. Doops | talk 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't they just register a second Wikipedia login to use for just that article? SeaFox 01:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

That's called sock puppetry, and it appears that Wikipedia discourages (SHOULD NOTs in RFC 2119 parlance) such practice. As Jimbo Wales put it: "There's no specific policy against it, but it's generally considered uncool unless you have a good reason." Would this count such a good reason? --Damian Yerrick 03:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a sock puppet if no page is ever edited by the person's two accounts. That is to say, I could have one account for historical articles, and another one for mathetmatical ones, and be rigorously sure never ever ever to cross this boundary. Doops | talk 03:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this hypothetical user needs to make a decision about which is more important to them; keeping their edits anonymous, or correcting flaws in an article about themselves. Not to play big-brother/privacy-nazi here, but if the user doesn't want to associate their real name/reputation on edits they don't sound like they have much faith in their own knowledge and probably shouldn't be making those contributions to start with. I'm just having trouble seeing a situation where someone would not want their contributions scrutinized in regards to who they were unless they were making negetive contributions, or simply a commonly known quack in the field they protrayed themselves as being an expert in. Ironically, before this policy change on having to be registered to edit articles, the person could have made the changes to their autobio while not logged on, citing who they were in the Talk page, and have maintained the anonymity for their regular account. SeaFox 08:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Including a note in this manner now, while the page is still "hot" on Slashdot, is going to be good for WP's image. Being overly defensive is not. Fool 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)