Wikipedia talk:Autobiography/Archive 2

Editing Facts

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

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

The way the article reads now, it says you can change mistaken facts about yourself, but it also says that "Facts, retellings of events, and clarifications which you may wish to have added to an article about yourself must be cited from an external source."

Unless you want to quibble that this only applies to addition and not modification, these two parts together now imply that you may change mistaken facts about yourself but only if you have an external source. Is this what you want? Ken Arromdee 17:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed to verifiable - I think that is a better statement of the existing policy/practice. Thanks Jitse Niesen for adding the emphasis and additional fact categories Trödel•talk 21:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How would this have worked for Siegenthaler? There's no way to verify that he was never accused of involvement in the Kennedy Assassination.

The only rationale he'd be able to give for deleting that comment would be, not that it was a mistaken fact, but that it was unsourced. So as well as letting people fix factual errors about themselves, you also need to let them make other sorts of edits, like removing unsourced statements.

In fact, that whole section seems to assume that people are fixing mistaken facts about themselves by adding things. The possibility that the fix involves a deletion doesn't seem to be considered at all. Ken Arromdee 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

"As a matter of practice" undermines the guideline

I copied this from the article page:

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

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

Response

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

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

I do not like the fragment. What is the relevance? It is just repeating what is says above, namely that an article created autobiographically is not necessarily deleted. The only addition is the last sentence ("Therefore … import"), with which I do not agree at all, and of which I doubt very much that it is shared by many editors.

The template at the top of the article says "please use the discussion page to propose any major changes." I'm glad that you are doing this now, but it should have been done before adding the paragraph. It is usually okay to be bold when editing articles, but guidelines represent the opinions of many editors, and one should be cautious in editing them. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this fragment either, and had wondered where it came from myself. Basically it makes the article "Don't do X for all the following reasons. Actually, it's ok to do X." I'll remove it until there is consensus to put it back in. Stevage 02:26, 14 January 2006

Yes, that is my whole point: the entire system is not consistent. But whose interests do we serve by pretending otherwise? Let this page reflect the reality of the "guidelines" process, in hopes that it may help to create an actual policy. In any case, Stevage, I appreciate your constructive response. Democritus

I do too. So please leave his version in place. BrianH123 04:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's good to practice constructive response, as well as appreciate it.
The current version incorporates his suggestion; it occurred to me after his comment that the irony expressed by my edit was being lost -- fair enough.
Presently, part of the original contribution is there and worded as forcefully as apparently will survive, but it lacks the latter portion that Stevage and evidently others objected to, thereby recognizing those concerns. This sounds like true consensus; consensus is not you deleting whatever-Democritus-writes and replacing it with your favorite. If Stevage himself feels I have not respected the spirit of his suggestion, then let him express it.
The wording is carefully chosen to not presume a concept of objective notability, which would be irresponsible.
(BTW, I invite all to read the conversation with an anonymous and apparently cowardly heckler on my talk page, which he later attempted to delete, after explicitly fleeing.) Democritus

Actually I have just rephrased it. It was a bit misleading to say "This just describes current practice" when the fragment in question was along the lines of "So actually it's ok to disregard this guideline." There are good reasons for not writing about yourself whether or not you turn out to be notable. So I've reworded it. Hopefully we're all happy now. Stevage 02:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy. My previous reponse to Democritus got overwritten in all the editing. I won't repost, but just summarize. In my view, both "guidelines" and "policy" have normative force (suggest what you should do), both need some consensus for change, but the latter is stronger and requires more consensus. I hope that's reasonably accurate. I did not intend to offend you Democritis; I just rolled back a change which you should have discussed on the talk page first, as the box on the top of the page says. Peace, and try not to hate me so much. I'm actually a pretty good guy. BrianH123 02:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: no one but BrianH123 himself (certainly not I) has intimated that I have any particular emotional attitude towards him, hateful or otherwise. Democritus

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

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

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

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

Version A:

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

Version B:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone whose only interaction with Wikipedia is that it has a bad article about him, won't be familiar with nuances of when editing such articles is allowed and when it's not, what "discouraged" means, or under what circumstances it's okay to violate guidelines. They'll just take any "this is discouraged" as a ban or near-ban and assume, at best, that only an experienced Wikipedia user may violate it and they themselves may not.

Expecting people like Siegenthaler to fix errors in articles about themselves, and discouraging people from editing articles about themselves, are conflicting goals. You can't reconcile them by saying that Siegenthaler can edit because he's only discouraged and not prohibited; a discouragement that is effective enough to drive away the people you want to drive away will be equally effective at driving away people like Siegenthaler. Ken Arromdee 00:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

However if one CAN remain neutral, then they should NOT be discouraged! This is VERY important. But one MUST BE ABLE TO BE NEUTRAL and stick only to verifiable information, this is EXTREMELY important. Wikipedia is a NEUTRAL encyclopedia. 70.101.144.160 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Siegenthaler incident is actually relevant here. This immediate question appears to have stemmed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deborah McGuinness. It's an entirely different issue. Tim Pierce 03:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Siegenthaler incident is very relevant, because whenever it gets discussed someone always says "He should have fixed the article himself!" If so, we'd better have policies that say he can do that. We can't try to discourage people from editing articles about themselves *and* say "Siegenthaler should have fixed the article himself!" People like Siegenthaler won't know that the discouragement isn't supposed to apply to them (if indeed it isn't).

The fact that Siegenthaler didn't even get this far, so he didn't run across this barrier, doesn't change the fact that the barrier is there and that if he had gotten farther he probably wouldn't have passed it. Ken Arromdee 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Not banning intellectuals and scientists (proposed language)

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

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

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

Your comments, questions, and suggestions are greatly appreciated.

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

I don't see why this would be necessary. Perhaps you could explain? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Inspired by the question above by Jitse Niesen, I suggest the following clarification of the above proposed language as follows:

There is no flat ban on people editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere and such editing per se does not constitute autobiographical editing. To establish such a ban would cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute. However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order.

It seems to me that adding the above language would be helpful as Wikipedia:Autobiography has been cited to the opposite effect in Wikipedia proceedings, e.g Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop.

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 18:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Inspired by the above comment by Stevage, I propose the following ammended language:

People editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere per se does not constitute autobiographical editing. The Wikipedia does not wish to cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute. However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order.

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what this is about. Autobiographical editing is about not editing articles about yourself. Unless you have previously published an autobiographical work, I don't see the relevance of your addition. Obviously Wikipedia doesn't want to discourage academics, but what does that have to do with this particular policy? I'm just a bit perplexed. Stevage 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to be perplexed about this. The reason for the confusion is that in some Wikipedia proceedings (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt/Workshop) in which Wipedia users have edited articles in areas where they published elsewhere, these users have been charged with violating Wikipedia:Autobiography. The reasoning used by those making the charge seems to have something to do with the idea that by making such edits they were per se engaged in self-promotion.

Because of the history of the Wikipedia in dealing with the "physics crackpot wars", there are indeed grounds for concern in this area. But we are engaged in Calvinball. I.e., as Jimbo has said, we are making this up as we go along. So we now need to clarify Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Based on my limited .5 year experience in contributing to the Wikipedia, I believe that The only long range hope for the Wikipedia in technical areas like concurrent computing is to attract more expert contributors. We now face unresolved Wikipedia policy issues because articles in Category:Concurrent computing increasingly address isses that are on the edge of the state of the art. Without more expert contributors, I am afraid that the level of conflict and general frustration will increase.

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 20:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

I think the issues of WP:AUTO and Carl's RfAr should not be confused: I think WP:AUTO is a problematic guideline, and I think Carl's autobiographical editing has been problematical. ArbCom is perfectly capable of understanding what WP:AUTO does and should say in that case, and it would be foolish to try to influence WP:AUTO in order to affect the outcome there. I believe that Carl's suggestion is motivated by a genuine desire to make Wikipedia friendlier to senior scientists, and even if some of you doubt his sincerity, it does no harm to behave as if his is acting in good faith and engage his suggestion on its merits. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia user has pointed out to me that the following is also relevant: WP:NOR#The role of expert editors

Therefore, I suggest that the proposed language become as follows:

People editing articles in the Wikipedia on subjects on which they have published elsewhere per se does not constitute autobiographical editing. The Wikipedia does not wish to cut out many of the people with the most knowledge and motivation to contribute (see WP:NOR#The role of expert editors). However, if they show inability to stick to Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR some individual sanctions might be in order.

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 22:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

An afterthought: I find this discussion interesting, but I don't think I'll say much here until Carl's AfD is finished, since I hope that ArbCom will say something substantive about this matter. I will say at least that we need WP:AUTO to be both more nuanced and more prescriptive than it is at present, and that I think that Carl is right about the offputting nature of the current guideline to some potentially valuable contributors. --- --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 02:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment, the citation of Wikipedia:Autobiography is accompanied by a reference to the misgivings by Reuben under which the following comment had already been posted:

• I think the professor and wikipedia would be best served if his involvement were only on the talk page of the article. Perhaps he could keep a website posting information and answers to disputes brought up here, and he could link the talk page to them -- Anon —the preceding unsigned comment is by 63.254.142.215 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So in this sense Wikipedia:Autobiography was used in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afshar experiment in a way that is contrary to the proposed language above.

Also the proposed language should make clear that Afshar could legitimately (although as you point out very carefully) contribute to the article Afshar experiment as long as he respected Wikipedia policy and guidelines including Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:NOR.

I suggest the following improved wording to include the very carefully part:

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

Regards, --Carl Hewitt 01:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Carl, thanks for standing up for objectivity and accuracy. Since you mentioned my work, I wish to make it clear (as it can be seen in the 1st deletion bid archive) that I have suggested to offer my corrections and new related publication material to an objective editor (even if he/she disagrees with my conclusions). To date no-one has accepted to act in that capacity. Sadly, this leads to my inability to correct the obvious errors in the article, which then causes more confusion about what I have actually claimed. I suggest that we start a process of asking qualified editors to act as "official editors" of the page, so that their edits remain as the more reliable portions of the article. While non-official editors can still edit the article, their input should be closely and promptly monitored to ensure accuracy. I hate self-promotion (and have never acted in that manner), but I hate disinformation and lies even more. I believe truth does not require salesmen; it simply sells itself. Best regards. Prof. Afshar 09:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Afshar,

Thanks for your kind words. You do in fact face something of a conundrum here because the Wikipedia is still evolving to deal with this kind of situation.

Having accurate content in the article Afshar experiment is fully and completely endorsed by the Wikipedia. The problem is to devise a mechanism that will accomplish this purpose. So I suggest the following:

Establish a clean draft of the entire article Afshar experiment in a subpage of the discusion page of your user page User talk:Afshar. Special rules apply to your user talk page and other users are not allowed to vandalize it. If another user vandalizes your user talk page, you can simply revert the changes. (Do you know how to do this easily?) Make your suggested corrections to the version of the article on your user talk page. You can allow other users who have the expertise and knowledge to improve the version on your user talk page. When a good enough draft exists on a subpage of your user talk page we can move it to the discussion page of the article Talk:Afshar experiment where we can collectively defend the proposed changes. After that we can update the article Afshar experiment itself to remove the errors and collectively defend the changes.

The above process might seem a bit involved. However, it is fairly likely to work and it is well in tune with current Wikipedia policies and practices.

Regards, Carl Hewitt 02:24, 21 January 2006 (PST)

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

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

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

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

No. It's written so convolutedly, I object on esthetic grounds alone. I might also object on substantive grounds if I had the patience to parse it. --BrianH123 22:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please make suggestions on how to rephrase so that it does not seem convoluted to you. --Carl Hewitt 00:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions:

1. Don't write in the third person when the guideline itself is in the second person.

2. Writing a sentence with a really long gerund phrase where you go on and on for a dozen words or more till you're almost at the end of the sentence before the poor reader knows what the subject is is bad.

3. Put "per se" after what it modifies ("autobiographical editing"). Or rephrase and lose the Latin ("does not, in itself, constitute...").

4. Don't mention sanctions; it's jarring. Simply state what's expected.

-- BrianH123 06:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. New proposed wording is below:

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

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

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

Conflicts of Interest re Colleges

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

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

If you see an autobiography

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

it it's biased or unsourced, then edit it. if it's not notable than afd it.

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

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

I'm also searching for it. Template:notable Wikipedian is somewhat similar, but not exactly the tag. --Vsion 03:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I accidentally found two autobiographies today: Robert Little, Christoph Marcinkowski. Any advice? --Vsion 07:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the correct process is to add them to Autobiography Category by adding the following (to talk page I am presuming) [[Category:Wikipedian autobiography|Lastname, First]] Trödel•talk 16:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've found the following two templates: Template:Wikipedian-bio and Template:Notable Wikipedian. From what I can tell, the latter is used much more commonly. Lbbzman 20:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be cool if someone good at grapics could design a template for autobiographies. Bertilvidet 11:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

"autobiography as translation service"

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

Sakir kocabas

Stehr, Nico

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

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

Your relatives

To the existing list

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

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

Recent removal

I do not agree with the removal of:

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

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

Update to reflect WP:LIVING

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

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

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

Is anyone going to put this in? The statement that users can't edit their own articles is in a big, highlighted, box, in bold letters. Nobody is going to see a statement in a separate article which, if very carefully read, might be interpreted to mean that users can, after all, edit their article under these circumstances. If you don't make it *clear* that users can remove negative material--and not just by displaying the statement with much less prominence than the statement that users can't edit their own pages--they won't know it. New people, like Siegenthaler and anyone else who comes to Wikipedia only because it has an article about themselves, aren't going to see statements that are buried.

Unfortunately, we need a strong consensus to change a guideline. If nobody is willing to even discuss the change, then there's no way to get a consensus, and we end up being stuck with a bad guideline by apathy. Ken Arromdee 18:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rereading it again, I noticed the boldfaced statement does say you can make corrections... at the end. I still think this is badly presented; right now it's an unconditional statement that users can't edit their own articles at all, with a little exception tacked on. It's easy to miss the exception, because the paragraph is not worded in an inverse pyramid way and the exception means that the original sentence should not have been unconditional. We have signs in stores which say "No dogs allowed, except for seeing eye dogs." We do *not* have signs in stores which say "Dogs are categorically prohibited from the store. Dogs cause noise and disruption, leave dog hair and excrement. The store refuses to spend millions of man-hours cleaning up after your dog. Of course, seeing eye dogs are allowed." Ken Arromdee 18:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I need help

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

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

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

Nationalism

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

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

Public relations practitioners

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

• "Do not post copyrighted material, even if it’s from your own Web site and you are authorized to do so. Material on Wikipedia is considered open source and may be picked up by other Web sites without your permission." Heck, if it's on your site and you are authorized to release it under GFDL, great! Just recognize that once it is released under GFDL, people can publish it freely. But, for example, the bulk of the list of prominent cases on the page about the NAACP LDF came from the organization itself and was used by permission. This is a perfectly valid way to get content, as long as it is either strictly factual (as in the LDF case) or is presented as the organization's views on topics where their views are of encyclopedic notability. In either case, it should be explicitly indicated as coming from the organization's own materials, just like citing any other source.

• "The “external links” section at the bottom of each article can be a valuable way to drive traffic to your Web site. When appropriate, add your URL to this area." Sort of true, but really frowned upon to add a link to your own site. If you believe it is appropriate, the protocol is to mention it on the talk page, and let someone else decide if it belongs in the article.

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

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

WP:AUTO and The Image of Size

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

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

Propose "person's POV" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paying others

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

Not banning intellectuals

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

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

Yep, that sounds right; it also seems to be pretty close to existing practice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

This suggestion is disingenuous. It is proposed by Pravknight (talk · contribs), who has an ongoing user conduct RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pravknight, for improperly editing an article he's personally involved in. His editing the article is proscribed by this guideline as a conflict of interest. His changing this policy to remove that prohibition is also a conflict of interest. FeloniousMonk 01:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal attack, and we should allow the community to decide what it thinks. I think my suggestion is especially relevant when it comes to having personal knowledge that certain asserted facts are false or libelous. Everyone should be allowed to participate in policy discussions and live with the consenus of the other editors on this policy, which I will.

If someone is accused of robbing a bank by a group that doesn't know all of the facts or uses ad hominem falsehoods without any hard evidence, why shouldn't someone close to the case who knows the facts be allowed to have a say?--Pravknight 14:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Pravknight, are you pretending that you have a good history on this topic??? Are you under the impression that you are named in a user conduct RFC because you have a good record as regards to this guideline? If not, then I fail to see why you think it was somehow uncivil for me or anyone else to identify you as a "violating WP:AUTO", which you are. It's not as if your very pronounced history as a disruptive editor with a problem with WP:AUTO is irrelevant to the fact that you're trying to steer development of the guideline on editing articles you are personally involved with. Are you saying that you would have preferred it if I had said "And now we have Pravknight, who is subject to an ongoing RFC precisely because he is violating WP:AUTO"? I suspect that your preferred alternative would actually be to have the fact that your violating the guideline and disruption therein earned you the RFC be hidden away completely and never referred to, but that is hardly called for by WP:CIVIL. FeloniousMonk 16:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If he's following official policy like NPOV, then he should not be criticized for making autobiographies. If the guideline forbids or discourages it even if all official policy is strictly adhered to, something's wrong with the guideline, it's TOO restrictive and it should DEFINITELY be changed. I STRONGLY believe this. However, if the guy is NOT following official policy then yes, you could charge him with "violating WP:AUTO" indeed, and charge him with violating all the official policies he violates. 70.101.144.160 03:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Confusing nuthsell

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

To quote my earlier comnment, it's like saying "Dogs are categorically prohibited from the store. Dogs cause noise and disruption, leave dog hair and excrement. The store refuses to spend millions of man-hours cleaning up after your dog. Of course, seeing eye dogs are allowed."

The main prohibition is presented so strongly, so prominently, and in so much detail that the exception seems completely out of place. Ken Arromdee 15:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So would there be consensus for rephrasing it? if there are no objections in the coming days I will edit the policy page per the above discussion.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already did that edit (diff) and then deleted the whole paragraph in which that particular sentence appears (diff) a few days ago. It used to be a nutshell (see Template:Guideline in a nutshell) summarizing the whole page, but that template was removed on 27 Nov (diff). I found the layout confusing at that point, and I thought it would be better to remove the whole paragraph.

Or is there something else which you think should be changed? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think it looks better without the nut. The purpose of this page is clear enough that it doesn't need a oneline summary. >Radiant< 15:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But what if it IS verifiable, etc.?

But what if you do deserve a biography on WP, so you write it YOURSELF but try NOT to push your own biases as right and stick to only verifiable 3rd-party sources of information (and try to avoid original research as much as possible)? It is still "strongly discouraged"?!?!?!?! If so that would make no sense at all. 74.38.32.128 02:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Any response? This was a point I was trying to discuss. I would suggest that if an autobiography managed to conform to the necessary policy on first writing that it should not be discouraged at all! This does make a lot of sense, at least to me, and I would like to hear some opinion on it. 170.215.83.83 22:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

For one, there's common sense. The vast majority of situations will not have an ideal situation like that. -- Ned Scott 00:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

But what about if you do manage to pull it off? Then what? Does it get nuked at a glance? Do you get insulted, flamed, etc? 70.101.147.74 00:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do manage to pull it off, then you've got an article. If someone lists it for deletion, it will likely survive and be kept. If someone gets mad, then they probably don't get it. No big deal. -- Ned Scott 00:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

But would you be reprimanded for "violating" this "official guideline"? 170.215.65.35 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Why no response? Anyway, I sure couldn't find out "directly", since for one I have no notable achievements (at least not yet) to warrant a biography here, auto or not, so I could not push the guideline into territory it should but does not deal with, without violating official content policies... 74.38.35.171 08:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You will only get in trouble if what you post is biased/unverifiable/original research. If it is not then no problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.218 (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy. Just WP:IAR. Unless WP:SNOW, it has no chance of being well taken, for example, if you are really self-biased, it would probably get deleted by WP:SNOW policy... So beware. MEEEEEEEEE! (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again.

"Creating or editing an article about yourself is strongly discouraged."

If I was Siegenthaler and saw this, I would conclude that fixing libel in my article was strongly discouraged.

The exception--that you can edit your own article to correct mistakes and remove unsourced negative statements--is important enough that we should *never* state that you can't edit your own article unless we make sure to include the exception right then and there. The exception must be clear and obvious to any new person. It must not be hidden, it should not be mentioned only occasionally, and no new user should have to read two versions of the rule, one with an exception and one without, and have to decide for himself exactly how much he's discouraged from following the exception. Ken Arromdee 06:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this contradicts the previous section, so I removed the words "or editing". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't creating an autobiographical entry banned outright? I assumed it was, except for user pages. If I wanted to describe myself, I'd have to be biased because I want to look good in others' eyes. "Richard Rabinowitz (1979 - ) is a nice, bookish kind of guy who loves biking, art, and urban planning, and goes to synagogue a lot (yeah, right, teeheehee)"... See how silly and POV that looks? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, it's not really silly. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

And, no, my dumb userpage doesn't count as an article! — Rickyrab | Talk 03:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If you want to look good, you can, but just not on Wikipedia! See? But in writing an article about yourself, contrary to your assertion, you do not HAVE to be biased. If you WANT to, then you cannot put the article on Wikipedia. But if you do instead decide to try and remain as neutral as possible at all costs, then you CAN put the article on Wikipedia. The guideline, at least in my reading, says: "It is OK to create an autobiography, provided the biography is worthy of inclusion here (WP:N & WP:V), and you adhere STRICTLY to the relevant Wikipedia policy, especially Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. However it is often very difficult to do this when regarding oneself due to ego, etc., and thus one should only attempt to pull off this stunt if they really, really are capable of being that neutral, etc. Otherwise your A/B is likely to get dumped." 70.101.144.160 02:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. For instance, I've been looking at the history of Poppy Z. Brite's article, which she's done quite a few edits to recently (under the username Pzbrite and one IP address), but very little of it seems to be particularly POV (at least, not the stuff she's edited, for the most part) or to violate any other Wikipedia policies. To the contrary, it appears that she's mostly added citeable information and reverted a couple of vandalisms and the like. Very few editors would probably be able to stay as neutral on a page about themselves, but she seems to be showing it as perfectly possible.

Additionally, let's say you're an SF writer and you write a short story and it wins a Hugo, which is one of the highest honors in the science fiction community - but you do not have an article on you yet. Well, since a Hugo is the SF equivalent of an Oscar or Emmy, you're obviously notable enough for an article. If you were to start an article on yourself (which wouldn't be un-useful in and of itself, given that a Hugo winner would be notable), you could merely: state very very basic, verifiable information such as name and birthdate and nationality, note that you're a "science fiction writer" who "won the [insert year here] Hugo award for [insert exact award here], for [insert short story title here], which was first published in [insert publication name here].", add a few verifiable categories (like "Hugo winners" or "American science fiction writers"), and upload a photo of yourself under free content license, as well as tagging the Talk page with appropriate tags ranging from "biography of living person" to "The subject of this article has edited Wikipedia..." (see: Template:Notable Wikipedian). Such an article would likely stay up due to the notability (Hugo winner) of the subject, and would be perfectly factual and neutral without pushing a POV. Of course, I still wouldn't recommend creating an article on yourself (and personally, I think I most likely would not do so myself without at least broaching it with the community first) just because of the etiquette of it, but it IS possible, and I would really not have a problem with that any more than I do the subject of articles correcting a spelling or removing an obvious vandalism or noting that they edit Wikipedia on the article's Talk page. So long as everything is still neutral, notability is made obvious and indisputable, and facts are cited and all, well, that would go to show why the policy says "strongly discouraged" as opposed to "completely forbidden". Runa27 06:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This policy does not make sense

This policy is actually a bit of a nonsense in my opinion. Anyone should be able to create an article and that article should be judged on the content of the article, not the person who created it. This is, I believe, a fundemental principle of wikipedia, which is contradicted here. There are enough safeguards in place in the system already. If someone who is not notable decides to make an entry for themselves, this is covered already by the policy on notabiility. If they make statements which cannot be verified, this is also covered in the policy of verifiable sources. Concern about bias is totally unfounded, because all individuals tend to be biased and this is the purpose of discussion.

It is frankly ridiculous to think that the rest of the world other than the individual concerned is going to be less biased than the individual themselves. If someone does post biased biographical information, it can be challenged, and should be challenged on that basis alone. This allows notable people to contribute to the purpose of the entries concerning them, adding information of interest to users. And if it is not of interest, it can be edited out.

A far better solution is to define good standards to biographies, and to allow anyone to create or edit articles as long as these standards are adhered to.

Frankly the current policy represents a prejudice against notable people, making the assumption that anyone notable cannot possibly be trusted to write anything honestly about themselves, and I take exception to this prejudice, and as already stated the issue is completely irrelevant in any case. In fact someone making claims about themselves are immediately accountable for their statements, in a way that does not apply to other users who are essentially anonymous.

Finally as policy it is un-enforcable, for the simple reason that any contributor to wikipedia is not vetted... again this is a fundemental principle of wikipedia. It is quite trivial for notable people to ask friends, colleagues and even staff to work on biographies on their behalf. This policy simply has the effect of driving the contributions of notable people, whether for their biographies or for contributions in their fields of expertise, undergound. Such a policy ultimately is only compatible with the concept of all contributions being anonymous, in which case wikipedia should strictly dissallow any revelation of the true identity of users, and should probably remove the user pages entirely. This would of course be a silly thing to do. Dndn1011 16:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dndn1011 makes very good points about (a) redundancy of policy and (b) the enforceability issue, which drives people to s-/m-puppets. As a policy, it doesn't make sense for those reasons. However, it might work as a guideline or an example under notability and verifiability: "For these reasons, for example, it is typically frowned upon for individuals to establish their own pages, since they are not truly unbiased arbiters of their own notability." "For these reasons, for example, it is typically frowned upon for individuals to significantly contribute to articles about themselves, since they may accidentally introduce unverifiable information." Etc. --LQ 17:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree to a point... except that accidentally introducing unverifiable information is something that everyone does all the time. It is ok to do this, because articles are not expected to be perfect as soon as they are first written. It says so somewhere in the policies I read it, but . It is not a hanging offence. What happens is that people point it out and ask for verification. When people make this "mistake" it is common for tags to be added. The whole article is not generally deleted immediately and the user does not immeidately become a persona non grata . In fact to quote the guidelines in Wikipedia:Your first article:

Articles written out of thin air are better than nothing, but they are hard to verify, which is an important part of building a trusted reference work. Please research with the best sources available and cite them properly. Doing this, along with not copying large amounts of the text, will help avoid any possibility of plagiarism.

This is perfectly fair, but notice how the common sense approach is taken that "Articles written out of thin air are better than nothing". In fact it is very common for references to be found after the original article introduces unverified statements. How many articles exist that have big tags on them saying "This article does not cite sources"? Dndn1011 18:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually what is perfectly fair in my opinion is to state pitfalls. Something like:

Contributing to an article about yourself presents many extra challenges. It can be difficult to be unbiased and easy to introduce many unverifiable statements. Do not be suprised if such contributions also get extra scrutiny. It is thus best to tread carefully.... blah blah blah....

--- Dndn1011 18:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. It is not impossible to be unbiased enough (it is impossible to be totally unbiased but then again that applies to everyone), it is just difficult. Nobody is totally unbiased, it is human nature to have biases. The thing is is to try to avoid them as much as possible. 74.38.35.171 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am in disagreement with Dndn1011; I was just quickly tossing out examples of a more advisory approach. Clearly such a thing would need to be worded carefully (including describing it as "advisory" or "statement of pitfalls" or "warning" or whatever). The Dndn1011 example is an improvement over the suggestions I made, and would certainly be refined over time. --LQ 21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a guideline, and thus is not strictly binding. Notice that it says that autobiographies are "strongly discouraged", this is not the same thing as "forbidden". Policy is what sets out what is and isn't forbidden, okay? 74.38.35.171 03:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A hierarchy among users?

To quote Bjonesin the section "If you see an autobiography":

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

When things don't make sense like this policy, it often means that there is some kind of agenda outside of the apparent rule set... and here it is. What exactly does "...would create a hierarchy among users that I don't think I'd like" mean? Could it be that the reason for this policy has to do with the ego of those who are not notable? Is there an irrational fear that notable people will sweep down and take over wikipedia? Is it a form a jealousy? "Hey I don't see why notable people should be able to create or edit articles about themselves when I can't do the same".

Please someone come up with a better explanation for this policy. Otherwise lets ditch it. Hierarchies are unavoidable. After all who is the most active wikipedian? Efforts to have complete equality might need to include slapping someone on the wrists for writing more articles than other people, or indeed beeing more knowledgeable than other contributors.

Is there some kind of voting procedure to effect change in policy? Dndn1011 09:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First thing would be to check notability -- see if the person and/or their achievements is/are notable enough to warrant a biography, auto or not, and if notability has been asserted in the article If notability has been established, then we check the cites and neutrality. If too few verifiable citations or too much POV, then the article may be deleted if not salvageable, and a full rewrite. If sufficiently neutral and verifiable (ie. not Vanity) then there should be no problem keeping it, even though it is an autobiography I still cannot see the harm. I do not feel comfortable with the AUTO "policy" the way it is as it seems to discourage or outright forbid even honest attempts to stay neutral. I cannot see the fairness in such a rule. For example with the Dino Dini article -- the guy tried to make an A/B edit, and it was reverted. The decision was half fair and half not -- the A/B edit was POV, NV, and OR, so that would be good grounds, however the reverter suggested that the more important factor was it being in violation of WP:AUTO (strange, I thought Policy and not Guidelines take precedence, this should have been secondary!), suggestion that he might be willing to ax even a neutral, verifiable, non-original research (ie. otherwise harmless) A/B edit on WP:AUTO grounds alone. This is what I object to. I've asked him about this too. WP:AUTO should be a guideline to interpreting relevant policy, not a substitute for policy or a way to tighten the bar beyond that found in policy when there would be no harm from the barred material (if we follow policy only we see that vanity A/Bs are disallowed. Good. If we follow this even totally-Official-Policy-compliant, ie. beneficial, A/Bs are disallowed too. Bad.). 74.38.35.171

I agree with you, although I do not agree that all of the removed work in the Dino Dini article was POV, NV and OR. Although POV NR and OR are policy, it is not trivial to decide if a statement is POV, NV and/or OR, because there is no clear cut definition (or rather the definitions have a large subjective component). Common sense makes up a good deal of the decision making process. With my own article I was attempting to add information. Anyone can challenge statements made on any subject, and the normal procedure is to challenge particular statements as POV, NV or OR and then allow the author to argue the case for the existing text, or modify the text, or provide references. In my case the article was completely removed with prejudice on the basis of one individual's interpretation of a guideline instead of working through the accepted procedure and policy. I have no desire to add to my own article in order to add POV, NV or OR statements. As can be seen in my work on Game Design, I am more than capabable of being of being unbiased even on a subject I have strong opinions of. In fact I find the excercise of trying to create an wikipedia article on a subject I am passionate about, and still remain within policy, as a very useful and growthful exercise as it help me understand which views I hold that are based in fact, and which are based in opinion. Unfortunately too many people have their own egos that refuse to admit that it is possible for anyone to be NPOV about subjects that they are passionate about, usually because they themselve are incapable of it. This prejudice on their part can be so strong that they will refuse to judge the content properly and instead dismiss it entirely. Anyway thank you for your support of my point of view. As I keep saying, articles should be judged on their content, not their authors. Dndn1011 16:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, then let's go through the edits, now shall we?

This is the section in question:

"Dini worked also in on a new football game to be published by Microprose from 1995 to 1996. However, Microprose decided to drop most of their sports titles, and the project was cancelled with an amicable agreement. (CITE REQUIRED)"

"In 1996, Dini went to the United States in order to gain experience of corporate game development and management working as Group Leader and briefly as Project Manager. Dino helped Z-Axis ship Three Lions, the first fully 3D soccer game. The title referred to the design of England's football badge, famously mentioned in a hit song featuring comedians Baddiel & Skinner. The game was released under various different names in Europe, and also as Alexi Lalas International Soccer in the USA. Later Dini worked at Universal Studios directing prototype work for a project called "Monster Movie"."

There are lots of claims here for which you provided no citations. You might know these things about yourself, but unless you can cite a third-party source so they can be verified, they are not suitable for Wikipedia. Facts have to be checked. So it could easily be dumped under WP:V for lack of verifiability, and under WP:NOR for similar reasons (if there are no pubs then it would be primary or original material.). I would like to hear from the deleter though what exactly he considers POV in the above since he cited an NPOV violation, too. (he said something about "self-aggrandizing" language but I was not sure exactly what that was as he did not say.) Maybe you should see if there are any 3rd party sources for these claims, and if so then try again but cite and cite every claim you make. If you cannot cite a claim, do not include it, as including it might be construed as NPOV violation as well -- too many uncited positive claims. 74.38.35.171 00:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, this text to which you refer was not added by me. It was added by some other person a long time before my contirbutions and was taken from my own website. After the conflict over my edits I tidied the article up by removing the verbatim quotes of my own website, (note that originally I let these stand as they had been added by someone else). My position was that as frecklefoot had "banned" me from editing my page (although I realize he has no such authority), in order to make the article less of a mess I had the right to remove the text on the basis of copyright infringement. But please this is not the place to discuss my particular case or that of anyone else. If you wish to discuss any particular own case (including my own) please do so on the appropriate talk page. Dndn1011 03:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems the text he "large reverted" was written by you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dino_Dini&diff=next&oldid=82236836

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dino_Dini&diff=86290504&oldid=84010380

But like you said this is not the place to discuss this specific case. Anyway, thanks for the response, I haven't gotten a lot of those around here! (responses, I mean.) I don't know if I'll discuss _this case_ further, however. 74.38.35.171 22:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I said the text to which you refered was not added by me. It existed before my edits. Obviously freklefoot also reverted text which I had. Dndn1011 00:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to look at that again, I'm not sure what you are referring to now. 74.38.35.171 05:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new guideline

OK I am going to take this apart:

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

This is bad. Asking people personally involved in subjects rules out experts in subjects as well. The concept of conflicts of interest is laughable because the very nature of wikipedia means that there is always conflicts of interest, because of potentially thousands of people can have different views and would like wikipedia to reflect their view. This should be removed.

Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself [1]. Refraining from such editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing.

Almost all articles go through "any prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality". Why is a ban on editing by people knowledgable about subjects important "in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV-pushing"? People whether notable or not have a tendancy to push their own POV and existing policies cater for this very effectively. This is seen to work for even the most controversial topics, so it should work just as well for autobiographical information.

If you have published elsewhere on a subject, we welcome you to contribute to articles on the subject for Wikipedia. However, every Wikipedia article is expected to cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way in order to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Articles that exist primarily to advance the contributor will likely be deleted.

The phrase "Articles that exist primarily to advance the contributor will likely be deleted" should be replaced with "Articles not conforming to the standards or notability, verifiability and neutral point of view are likely to be edited or deleted".

The problem with autobiographies

It is said that Zaphod Beeblebrox's birth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this.

— The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Fit the Ninth

Although humorous, the above illustrates the several fundamental problems with autobiographies:

• They are often biased, usually positively (see puffery). People have a tendency towards self-aggrandizement when talking about themselves, and for presenting opinions as facts. Wikipedia does not present opinions as facts. Muhammad Ali writing "I am the greatest" in a Wikipedia article about himself is not acceptable, for example. Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view (which does not mean simply writing in the third person).
• They can be unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) However true something may be, if readers cannot verify it, it does not belong here. Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable.
• They can contain original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. (For example: Unless your shoe size is, for some extraordinary reason, already a matter of widespread public knowledge, including your shoe size in an article about yourself is original research, since verifying it would require readers to come to you and measure your feet for themselves.) Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and as such, original research is not permitted in Wikipedia.

This should be removed completely. We do not need an example of biased articles. We know what they are. Yes autobiographies can be biased, unverifiable and contain original research. But then so can any article especially when started by a contributor who has knowledge or interest in a subject but does not wish to conduct research in finding references to subtantiate the information because of lack of time or any other reason. The person making claims does not need to be the same as the person verifying them. That is the whole point of collaboration. This whole section should be replaced with something like:

Autobiographical Pitfalls

Contributing to an article about yourself presents many extra challenges. It can be difficult to be unbiased and easy to introduce many unverifiable statements. Do not be suprised if such contributions also get extra scrutiny. It is thus best to tread carefully:

• It is easy to be biased when writing about oneself. People have a tendency towards self-aggrandizement when talking about themselves, and for presenting opinions as facts. Wikipedia policy is not present opinions as facts. As such you will find you contributions objected to if they present your opinion about yourself rather than facts about yourself.

• It is easy to make unverifiable statements. If the only source for a particular fact about you is you yourself, then readers cannot verify it. (One common area where this is the case is with hopes, dreams, thoughts, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think.) However true something may be, if readers cannot verify it, it does not belong here. Everything in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. Thus if you do inadvertently or deliberately add such unverifiable statements you may find these contributions objected to.

• It is easy to present original research. People often include in autobiographies information that has never been published before, or which is the result of firsthand knowledge. This type of information would require readers to perform primary research in order to verify it. Original research is not permitted in Wikipedia.

If you contribute material that is biased, unverifiable or original research, then this is is likely to be modified or deleted by others in order to conform with wikipedia policies.

Moving on...

If Wikipedia already has an article about you

It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing. Instead, contribute material or make suggestions on the article's talk page and let independent editors write it into the article itself.

...

It is difficult to write neutrally about anything. This section should be rewritten thus:

When making modfications to articles about you, bare in mind the pitfalls described above. Take care before removing or modifying the prior work of others. It is very easy to be tempted to remove some piece of information that you would rather not be presented, but the only valid reason for doing so is if the information is:

• Unverifiable
• Verifiably untrue
• Biased
• Original Research
• A breach of copyright

Please afford the same respect to prior conrtibutors that you would for contibutors to any other article. The best way to avoid major conflicts is to use the discussion pages before making sweeping changes to any article, including an article about you.

Wikipedia does not wish to have an inaccurate article about anything including people. The Neutral point of view policy means that articles should be balanced and fair and verifiable and of course should contain as much relevant infromation as possible. Any contributions that adhere to the principles of notability, neutral point of view, verifiability and non-original research should be accepted by the wikipedia community, regardless of the identity of the contributor.

If you don't like the photo, you can help Wikipedia by contributing a good photo under a suitable free content license.

It would probably be a good idea to identify yourself on the article's talk page with the {{Notable Wikipedian}} notice.

In other languages

Mention what to do if Wikipedia has an article about you in language A, and you just want to translate it into language B, as I hereby intend to do for Talk:Dan_Jacobson (Taiwan), as other translators have not stepped forward. Jidanni 00:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Finally the final section:

Creating an article about yourself

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

...

This is very poorly thought through. Here there is a total prejudice that undermines the very principles of wikipedia. The implication is that even if you are notable and write an article about yourself which is unbiased, verifiable and not original research, it is acceptable for your article to be deleted. I have also read the "independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability" phrase many times over and still don't understand it.

This section should be rewritten thus:

Creating an article about yourself has an extra pitfall, which is the question of whether you are notable enough to have such an entry. Ultimately the decision rests with the community. If you are not notable enough then the community will be likely to remove your entry. You should apply common sense here. If you are famous, that is pretty clear and there will probably already be an article about you. However it is not possible to have a hard and fast rule about what constitutes being notable. The best way is to look at existing biographies and get a sense on whther you are notable or not in comparison. As a general rule, if you have had something published or achieved something that has been brought to the attention of the general public you are notable. However the question always remains on whether the notability is sufficient; being famous in your home town might not be enough to warrant an entry in wikipedia.

Many people consider it good form to wait until someone writes an article about you rather than you starting your own. This of course still does not guarantee that you are notable enough for the community, but it is certainly a good sign of it.

Note that anything you submit can be edited by others. Several autobiographical articles have been a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and have been occasionally listed for deletion by their original authors. In some cases the article is kept even if the original author requests otherwise.

Verifiable sources

If you already maintain a personal website, you can ensure that any information that you want in your Wikipedia article is already on your own website. As long as it's not involving grandiose claims like, "I was the first to create this widget," or "My book was the biggest seller that year," (unless, of course, the claim is true and you can provide evidence) a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information. As the Wikipedia Verifiability policy states: Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources.

For my money this is much better.... comments? Dndn1011 10:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments

I'm not seeing the problems you are seeing. What we have now is really good advice. Not only that, but a guideline is not policy and is not a ban on activity. The statements being made are true more times than not, which is why it's a good guideline. Being a guideline means it is subject to rationale exception. The wording of the guideline internally discourages certain types of edits, and that is a very good thing. I don't believe we have a problem where people are not able to contribute valid edits to any article, about themselves or about something they are involved with. To weaken ourselves on these guidelines will hurt more than it helps. -- Ned Scott 12:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

(via edit conflict) Starting with the very first quote: I don't think the current version is bad. The experience has showed that the vast majority of people writing about themselves, their website, or their company write terrible articles. Given that, I think it's fair to say that you should not write an article about yourself.

And what about the small minority who do write good ones? Do their A/Bs just get MERCILESSLY NUKED out of sheer prejudice?!?! Is that fair to them? 74.38.35.171 02:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

When you say "Asking people personally involved in subjects rules out experts in subjects as well" you seem to be taking it wider than intended. An oncologist is welcome to write about different kinds of cancer. She may even mention her own research if it is relevant (see Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself). The only thing that she shouldn't do is to write a new article solely about her own research.

The guideline that editors should not start articles about themselves has been here a long time, and I think it is still endorsed by almost all Wikipedians. Just to be clear: Do you want to remove "You should not start an article about yourself", or do you want to clarify that oncologists are free to write articles about cancer?

I think that is such a fundamental issue that we should first get to agree on this before we can tackle the rest. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ned Scott : "Not only that, but a guideline is not policy and is not a ban on activity" : actually I have had experience of this being interpreted as a ban, and had a contribution of mine to my own biography wiped out with no negotiation or consultation, with the person doing so explicitly contradicting the view that it is a guideline. See Talk:Dino Dini. The current guideline appears to be more than a guideline and seems to be overstating its authority if indeed it is just a general guidline for writers of articles. I have attempted to reword the guidline so that it will be interpreted as a guideline and appears to be a guideline rather than a policy. The wording in the current "guideline" is very strong, inconsistent and confusing. I think the rewrite is much clearer and removes the unwarranted portends of doom.Dndn1011 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse Niesen : I think it is quite clear in what I have proposed for this guideline. I mistakenly called it policy and have edited the section title accordingly. The fundemental principle is that articles should be judged by their content, not the author. This is reflected in the way I have rewritten the guidelines. This fundemental principle (which I believe not only to be central to the philosophy of wikipedia, but central to the process of rational discussion as well) answers your question I believe. If an expert in their field creates an article solely about their field of expertise, providing it is unbiased, notable, verifiable and not original research then it is valid article. Who cares who wrote it when it can be rewritten by anyone with an valid objection?Dndn1011 13:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Jitse Niesen : "(via edit conflict) Starting with the very first quote: I don't think the current version is bad. The experience has showed that the vast majority of people writing about themselves, their website, or their company write terrible articles. Given that, I think it's fair to say that you should not write an article about yourself."

Even if you are different and could write a good article? What would be so bad about allowing them to? Would you still WP:NUKE it out of WP:AUTO concerns even if all other policy/guidelines are satisfied?! This is the big question, the one I'd like a real answer to by diehard WP:AUTO supporters. 74.38.35.171 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I whole heartedly disagree. This is complete nonsense. If we were to accept your statement we would have to make all kind of other assertions, such as "People with strong opinions should not contribute to wikipedia". Just because people hold opinions does not make them unable to present facts. Dndn1011 13:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem if "an expert in their field creates an article solely about their field of expertise"; this is not prohibited by the guideline.

What is "complete nonsense"? People with strong opinions have proven quite capable of writing good articles, though there are quite some exceptions. On the other hand, people who start writing an article about themselves have proved problematic, and we won't lose much if they hadn't written the article. There is a big difference between "People with strong opinions should not contribute to wikipedia" and "People should not start an article about themselves". -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no difference at all where articles should be judged by the content not who wrote them. It is nonsense to say that any class of people should not make certain contributions in case they make biased contributions. It is prejudice. I have stated by arguments clearly you have not actually responded to them, particularly the point about judging articles by content alone. Dndn1011 08:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You say that articles should be judged by content alone. The guideline (and I) agree that when an editor has created an article about themselves, it cannot be deleted solely because of that. However, before the article is created, when there is no content to go by, it is best in the guideline's opinion not to create the article at all, but concentrate on other things. You say that is prejudice, and you may have a point, but our goal here is to write an encyclopaedia. We try to have fun and be nice and fair in the process, but getting a good encyclopaedia is the overriding concern, and that is why we do not want people writing about themselves.

What you're proposing is a big change to a long-established guideline, in my opinion akin to abolishing it, and that should not be decided by whomever happens to be watching. If you do want to try and push this through, you should post Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) in order to get more people involved (I'm happy to do this if you prefer, but you might feel I'm not representing your proposal properly). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I think you are over representing the significance of the changes I propose. It is not the same as abolishing it at all. I just re-read my proposed changes concerning "Writing an article about yourself". It states all the concerns that the current policy has about such activity. The only difference is that my changes make clear it is the article that will be judged and not the contributor. In other words, if you can write an autobiography that meets the standards agreed for all articles and biographies in particular, then there is no reason why you should not even create an entry about yourself, providing you are actually notable. I have no problem with some kind of protocol regarding a way of determining in advance if someone is notable. If the new guideline stated something along the lines of "If you feel you should have an entry about yourself in wikipedia, good practice is to discuss this with other editors first, rather than just create one." There is plenty of room for maneouver here without the need of striking the fear of wiki into anyone even contemplating creating or editing their own birographies. The village pump is a good idea, and yes I would prefer to raise the issue myself there. Thanks for the constructive discussion so far though.Dndn1011 11:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And how much does Wikipedia have to lose if they do write the article? Not everyone necessarily is irredemably biased even if writing about themselves, and if they are seen to be making an honest effort to keep away from bias they should be encouraged and aided in that pursuit. If the article comes out somewhat biased, it can always be fixed if the notability is high enough. If it's total biased unverifiable tar, it can simply be deleted. As for people making ABs being "problematic", not ALL of them are, and we should NEVER punish those that are not, especially if we see them trying to be neutral, we should HELP. 74.38.35.171 04:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that nobody is able to make a neutral edit to an article about themselves? 74.38.35.171 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

So this is pretty much just about a dispute with the Dino Dini article? I'd have to side with the editor who reverted the changes. Even without this guideline, it's all original research, and I see that as a much larger issue than WP:AUTO. -- Ned Scott 09:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The dicussion here has nothing at all to do with my biography. I mentioned it merely because of the view taken by an editor in that case that this guideline was a cast iron rule, in order to respond to your asertion that "Not only that, but a guideline is not policy and is not a ban on activity". Again you are falling into the trap of focusing on who is speaking rather than what is being said. Feel free to add your opinion on my biography there, it is not appropriate here as this is not about my biography but about the guidelines. I sometimes despair at the inability of some individuals to engage in neutral unbiased discussions without bringing personalities into it. An idea or concept or argument does not change its validity depending on who states it. I would assert that mature, productive debate should be based on reason and logic, not finger pointing. Dndn1011 10:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, you are looking at an original research issue, not an autobio issue. I almost reverted back to your changes since you were fairly neutral and contributed a lot of good info (I didn't read it in depth, but I saw no major issues). It doesn't matter who adds the info, we need external sources (see WP:RS). If you can do that then I would likely support your contributions to your own article.

More often than not, when I see someone calling for a major rewrite of a guideline it is because of an isolated issue rather than a widespread problem. And more often than not, there is a reasonable solution that has nothing to do with changing the guideline. -- Ned Scott 11:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand this, however I assure you that my motivation here has nothing at all to do with my biography. My attention was drawn to this guideline by the incident, however once again that does not invalidate my arguments. I feel that the current guideline is ineffective for the reasons I have already argued, and I have proposed a replacement that is much better, in my opinion. My biography is frankly of very little relevance compared to the bigger issue of this guideline, which is why I am focusing my attention here.Dndn1011 13:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with him on the deletion due to lack of WP:V and it being WP:OR, but I do not agree with his statements that imply WP:AUTO is the overriding issue, as that would suggest WP:AUTO could be used to blast away even verifiable, non-original, and neutral autobiographies (they are not common but they still do exist), overriding all core content policy out of sheer prejudice. 74.38.35.171 02:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You have also said that a website is an OK source, but this is not so in most if not all cases, the sources must be reputable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. 74.38.35.171 02:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong! to Quote from that very document you refer to:

Self-published sources in articles about themselves

Main article: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

* relevant to the self-publisher's notability; * not contentious; * not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; * about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

Dndn1011 00:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Issues

I have reason to believe that User:Asmodeus is actually Christopher Michael Langan. There are a number of pieces of evidence he has offered himself including taking a hardline anti-academic stance (similar to those seen in article written about Langan), admitting to living in a similar location as Langan (the midwest), and exhibiting a close friendship with User:QTJ who has admitted to being friends with Langan, and other users have noticed similar characteristics. Although it is not the place for anybody to "out" another Wikipedian, this has very strong implications for WP:AUTO since the user does edit the article about himself (if it is indeed himself). Any suggestions for how to proceed would be welcome. --ScienceApologist 18:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would maintain that this kind of PI style of posting is quite inappropriate. It is distasteful and irrelevant. I mean look at it... "I have reason to believe that...", "There are a number of pieces of evidence...", "who has admitted...", "taking a hardline anti-academc stance...", "admitted being friends...".

Where will it end? "Further my investigations revealed that X is not only living in the same apartment building as Y, who is known to have strong opinions, but has been observed talking with Y at a local bar. Given the nature of Y's opinions, we believe X should be restrained from access to any computer systems to remove any possibility that he pollute wikipedia with an opinion, even for a moment."

It does not matter who posts as long as they are not disruptive. The way to proceed? Spend you efforts working with the actual text of articles instead of trying to decipher the personal lives, opinions and credentials of those writing them.

And if this was a wind up, good on you... heh Dndn1011 19:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW I should thank you. Never knew about this chap before. He sounds interesting.... BTW check out Kurt Gödel, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, Shadows of the Mind, Quantum mechanics and perhaps Double-slit experiment.

Yes. If he keeps trying to opinionate the article, then just deal with it as NPOV violation. You can't prove it is some sort of biased autobiography, you can only prove it is a biased something, and thus should be treated like any other biased something. The bias should be removed, and if he keeps trying to keep it biased, then one could block him from editing that article. Focus on the content and approach him on it (the content that is. Not on something that is itself based on an opinion.). 74.38.35.171 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Corporations

For the second time now, I have looked for the equivalent of WP:AUTO for corporations, i.e. a user who is a paid employee of a company working on WP in an official (or unofficial) capacity. I send them here and just mention that it is uncouth, but is there something else I can direct them to (besides my current trifecta of WP:AUTO, WP:CORP, and WP:ADVERT)? I am not talking about viral marketing here which is obvious spam, but assumed good faith. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 18:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

That's another good one I guess. Thanx, but was hoping for more of a direct AUTO translation... — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting deletion of your own article

I suggest that just as you should not be keen on creating your own article, you should also not be keen on seeing that it is deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke for some recent discussion that has some bearing and some possible principles forming... Some potential principles:

• It's OK to suggest deletion, but it may not be wise to tag as speedy (that's too fast, some community review is approrpiate) yourself... let others do that.
• The subject's wishes, if he or she is a wikipedian in good standing, are a factor, but not the only, or not a decisive factor, in the decision (if the decision is on the cusp otherwise, this could sway things but no one gets to say "I just don't want an article, make it go away").

Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 09:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You can be "keen" on creating your own article. Did you mean "creating your own autobiographical article", perhaps? You could suggest deletion of the former, the latter is tougher and may require a higher level of proof. It can't be strictly forbidden though as we have to be fair, and some people may have good enough judgment. Forbidding would be grotesuqely unfair to them. 74.38.35.171 02:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

What about if you ended up writing an autobiography, and you realize it is biased, unverifiable, etc. vanity. Could you then nominate it for deletion? I think you should be able to. 74.38.32.195 07:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hidden editing

Say Wikipedia has a biographical article on some guy, and that same guy actually has an account on Wikipedia. But the thing is, the guy wasn't involved in the creation of the article, and no one knows the guy in the article is this user. My question is, if they guy finds this article about himself and starts editing it up and down and all around, is there not any way we could find out that the editor is the guy in the biography? What's to say there isn't—nay, what's to stop there from being—tons of biographies on Wikipedia right now with positive POV all over it that may actually be being made biased by the person in the article him-or-herself who just so happens to have an account that we didn't know about? Or is this covered somewhere? I mean, it's not like I'm going to look for this stuff in WP:AB.
VolatileChemical 18:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if it's POV then it should be caught and dealt with as a WP:NPOV breach. What may lead to suspicion that it is a non-neutral autobiographical attempt, however, is if it's happening to a single article on someone. Of course if it is not POV, then there's no problem with the changes. 74.38.35.171 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Good. This would be a really bad website if people couldn't edit their biographies at all. VolatileChemical 05:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be really, really bad indeed. What if it's something as simple as a typo? 74.38.35.171 06:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Throwing more sticks on the fire

I saw this at Talk:Dino Dini:

"Dndn1011, since you are Dino Dini, you really shouldn't edit this article. I removed the sections on your early life, etc., since they don't really add much to the topic of you being a game developer/designer. It's also completely unsourced. I know that you don't really need a source, since you lived it, but that kind of OR isn't permitted on Wikipedia. But moreoever, Wikipedia policy stricly prohibits anyone who has an article from editing that article, apart from blatant corrections ("Hey, I wasn't born in 1932!") and reverting vandalism. Therefore, I removed most of those sections you added."

Doesn't this sound like WP:AUTO is thus being placed on a HIGHER authority than WP:V and WP:NOR?! I don't think it should as this is a guideline, and those are policy. Big difference. Also, it "strongly discourages", not "strictly prohibits" writing an autobiography.

To test my case I've been pushing here, I'd like to know if anyone has managed to pull off a fairly neutral, verifiable autobiography, and I'd like it see exactly what happened. Could you please point me to a couple of cases as they might settle this for me. If it "strictly prohibits" then we should expect to see even neutral, verifiable, non-original-research A/B edits being reverted and the editor reprimanded, obviously at least to me a horribly unfair thing to do since they technically violated no official policy. 74.38.35.171 04:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I saw this: "It is difficult to write neutrally about yourself. Therefore, it is considered proper on Wikipedia to let others do the writing." But "difficult" need not mean impossible (if it does, then it should indeed by changed to say it is impossible.). Does the second sentence mean though that it is still improper to even add neutral material if you manage to perform the hard work and pull it off? How is that fair, exactly? Also, if a proposed autobiographical edit is approved by consensus, but someone still hasn't added it, is it OK to do it yourself? If not, what's the rationale for forbidding it? The edit's community-approved after all. Sorry if I'm posting a lot of posts but I have a lot of disagreement with this which sounds like it's not fair to those who really want to make the hard effort to be neutral! What I'm asking is can WP:AUTO become grounds for removal even if the autobiography or other potential-COI information satisfies all other Wikipedia policy including WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR? If so, Goodness in Heaven WHY?! What Harm Does It Do??? 74.38.35.171 02:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read my propsed change to the guideline above. I believe I covered everything. Dndn1011 00:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I did. It's interesting. I do find the present guideline a little too restrictive as it seems to suggest even honest attempts to be neutral would be shunned. 74.38.35.171 21:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear anon, if you're looking for a good example of a reasonably good article that was edited (sometimes quite frequently) by its subject, Poppy Z. Brite is a good one. Other than one line involving the word "interesting" (which I don't think she wrote), there is little to no POV that I can see in the article, it is factual and accurate and sourced. She's not the only editor, but she's one of the better ones on it, and most of her edits have been NPOVing and removing vandalism or correcting small things like a wrong title in the section about her published works. It's a pretty good article which gives a good overview of the subject. 63.21.91.164 08:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

I am going to make a template concerning WP:AUTO. Please post on pages which contain conflict of interest because I am having the same problem with Julia Allison. Bearly541 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see {{Autobiography}} Bearly541 22:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You need a template {Self-edit}

{Self-edit} produces This article includes text from the actual subject. Please verify content in source box.

If the person doesn't put it up, warn them, and put it up yourself. It allows self edits to fix, wrong dates, correction of vandilism, but at the same time allows users to know they content should be varified. --71Demon 18:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional guidance needed

This guideline should include some recommendations on what to do when the subject of an article edits it. We have {{uw-autobiography}} for when someone creates an article about themselves, but it would be useful if we also had a politely worded template which could be used to inform people about our policies on autobiography and conflict of interest. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

I don't have much experience with creating templates, but I suppose that if nobody else is going to create a template for this I'll have to do it myself, when time permits. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Mechanism to allow individuals to supply corrections about their articles without editing the article

As the guideline states, editing an article about yourself should be strongly discouraged, but there is currently no other way to amend inaccurate information apart from directly asking another user to change it. I propose we set up a page where individuals can transparently and openly point out inaccuracies in their own articles for other users to review and fix. Apologies if such a page has already been set up but I haven't been around for a while. Any feedback? --Oldak Quill 01:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the Biographies of living persons noticeboard. A link to that page should be found on the talk page of any living person, via the template {{WPBiography}}. (If the parameter "living=yes" is included in the template, an explanation of the WP:BLP policy is included, with a link to the noticeboard. For a random example, see Talk:David Tennant.))

Also, there's nothing wrong with the subject of an article editing the article's talk page to ask for corrections. Of course, I don't know how they're supposed to know that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what a talk page is for. One could discuss the proposed change on the talk page, and thereby seek consensus to approve making the change. mike4ty4 02:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How does it do that?

I saw this:

"Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. "

How does non-independent creation discourage such validation of notability and verifiability? mike4ty4 02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not guaranteed that if you write an article about yourself it's going to be biased, but you gotta admit that it makes it more likely to be. Everyone wants to cast themselves in the best light, it's not even intentional, it's just what we do. About the verifiability thing, if I don't know Mr. DudeGuy, and I write an article about him, I'm going to have to rely on publicly available sources, since that's the only way I can get info about him. But if he writes an article about himself, it's not exactly that that discourages validation etc, but it does make it possible for him to include non-notable and non-checkable info about his cat or his favorite breakfast cereal. Trust me, I have definitely seen this occur (well, not with cats and breakfast cereal per se, but you know). I hope this kind of answers your question, but if it doesn't, definitely keep the discussion going here or by dropping me a message on my talk page. delldot talk 16:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The unfortunate case of Petronella Wyatt

I've added this instructive example to the page - the hazards of creating one's own article - David Gerard 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article by Wyatt states that "Jerry Sanger" was a co-founder of Wikipedia. So the piece is instructive in ways that its author almost certainly didn't intend. A source's reputation for fact checking and accuracy is something that we consider here. Uncle G 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tightening and de-crufting

Like most policy/guideline pages, this one has suffered a surfeit of special-case subclauses and convoluted grammar. I've just gone through trying to rewrite it more clearly, without removing important points. If there's any subtle phrasing I've removed which you feel is particularly important, please feel free to restore it - David Gerard 14:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored a whole section that was vandalised by Kierst139 (talk · contribs), that linked to our content policies and described how they applied, and condensed the paragraph of your text in the introduction that attempted to cover the same ground. Uncle G 15:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That Beeblebrox quote is perfect! I've done a pile more tightening and tried to write something that would plausibly give pause to a well-meaning minor celebrity - David Gerard 22:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

since there appears to be no WP:AUTO noticeboard

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Optimus_Prime_%28person%29&diff=138413307&oldid=136512708 — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

J. Scott Armstrong

Indeed, there isn't. Perhaps there should be. I've found J. Scott Armstrong, which was created by one user who has done nothing else. Furthermore, this [2] by the said Armstrong advertises his wiki biog, which is quite unusual. It also may be a copyvio of [3]. Wots the appropriate procedure? William M. Connolley 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a WP:COI noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. WP:AUTO is just a special case of WP:COI. mike4ty4 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)