Talk:Biographies of living people/Archives/2009

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Scope

What should the scope of this policy be? All Wikipedias and Wikinewses? Should we include Wikisource and Wikibooks? Should it be a global policy? --MZMcBride 17:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

All Wikimedia projects souns global and funny. Source hosts alot of old books with biographies, which do not cover criticism and praise in a balanced and neutral manner. Syrcro 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
And neutral point of view is more of a Wikipedia/Wikinews thing. And maybe Wikibooks. We have no such policy on Commons. Wikisource and Wikiquote obviously don't adhere to it either. It's not really relevant to Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Meta, or the rest. Rocket000 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I've limited the scope to Wikibooks, Wikinews, and Wikipedia. I've also refactored and tweaked the page a bit. --MZMcBride 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how "old books with biographies" would fall under this; presumably, all books old enough to be here don't involve living people. That said, there is a use in not applying the policy to commons and wikisource, since there are valid images and source documents that, in themselves, may violate BLP, but on Wikipedia would be given the proper context and explanation to diffuse that. I guess. --Golbez 05:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This should not be applied to Wikinews either. There is too much scope for it to be abused as a way of suppressing news. The project quite deliberately does not have a BLP policy. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Brianmc (talk · contribs) here. Wikinews should be responsible for its own related policies, locally at the project-level. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
While the ideal of having a common policy for this seems like a good idea, perhaps every project would be better off being responsible at the local project-level? --darklama 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree here with this comment by Darklama (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Same here. I disagree with this global policy. Each project should have its own guidelines and policies for this sort of thing suited to its scope and needs. While it is always important to maintain NPOV, a BLP policy like this could easily be abused to suppress news. Tempodivalse [☎] 18:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Each project is free to have its own policies and guidelines, but what is the issue with a global policy? A document that encompasses the fundamentals.
Regarding Wikinews, of course news stories should treat subjects fairly. I can't think of a place where a policy of this type is more necessary. --MZMcBride 17:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: "cover criticism and praise in a balanced and neutral manner" - this seems as it would hamper Wikinews a bit much. What does this mean? All articles ever having to do with people that are currently alive, criminals, serial killers, etc., must devote equal amounts of text to praising them, as to criticizing them? Again, it is preferable for projects (and especially with Wikinews, I can't speak to Wikibooks) to determine these issues locally, at the project-level. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Cirt. The policy would force Wikinews (and other projects) to praise people as much we criticise them? For certain persons this would be difficult or even silly (murderers, criminals etc.). Also, what about interviews with subjects? Do they have to be neutral? Wikinews frequently interviews people who hold radical beliefs. This policy would severely hamper us with interviewing. imho BLP issues should be dealt with on each individual project, according to its scope. Tempodivalse [☎] 21:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Local projects are encouraged to create their own similar policies. However, I'm not sure what harm you see in creating a guideline for all the projects. We do this in other areas. I think the issues surrounding living people are great enough that it warrants a bit of extra documentation, so to speak. Does that sound reasonable? --MZMcBride 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What is reasonable is to allow Wikinews to continue to develop and enforce its own policies and processes locally, and not impose them from on high. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikinewsies are strongly encouraged to participate in discussions like this (and I'd be curious if we have people outside the English projects who can weigh in). That's the reason we have Meta. But at the end of the day, Wikinews is a member of the global Wikimedia community. --MZMcBride 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What about Wikiversity? Should this proposal also cover Wikiversity? What about being verifiable? Should biographies of living people at all times be verifiable even if the facts aren't necessarily neutral? Should verifiability apply to all projects even if a project does not follow the principals of NPOV or does not do so all the time? Perhaps an exception should be made for previously published works to cover Wikisource, or perhaps the proposal could be worded in such a way that Wikisource could be covered without violating it. If I understand correctly, Wikisource is suppose to only host previously published works, so if Wikisource is hosting biographies of people still living any information in there is likely to have been fact checked or been considered reliable at the time of publication. Does this proposal really need to specify which projects it applies to? Biographies of living people are likely outside the scopes of Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Meta, etc. Should this proposal even be limiting its focus to just biographies? Most stories about living people that Wikinews is likely to write about is unlikely to be in the form of a "biography". --darklama 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This should cover any project where there is original content being created that could potentially harm living people. Do you agree with that statement? I'm not sure if it needs to specify which projects it applies to. I originally wrote to be completely global, but people had concerns about negative impacts. What are your thoughts?
As a side note, NPOV is a core global policy for all Wikimedia projects.
--MZMcBride 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by "original". I've seen confused people wonder if by original it means projects can only copy existing works. Most anything written on Wikimedia project is an original work even if it is not original information. I think for this proposal to find the right balance, to work well for all projects, and to avoid having a negative impact, it needs to consider the needs and scope of every project, much like what seems to have helped with the update to Wikimedia Commons' inclusion criteria awhile ago. Perhaps a code of ethics for works about living people would help? English Wikinews has Wikinews:Code of Ethics which includes things like "get all sides of the story", "avoid misrepresentation", and "minimize harm". Wikinews and Wikiversity both allow original research. If projects can define what a reliable source is than maybe original information obtained directly from the person being researched can be defined as a reliable source. A concern may be that projects have no say in what a reliable source is, or that reliable sources and original information are mutually exclusive.
I can't find the relevant links right now (plus it would be sidetracking this discussion), but its always been my understanding that Wikiversity was given a free pass on ignoring NPOV–at least some of the time, and was required to come up with a policy of what to do instead, which Wikiversity has. Also the very link you point to for NPOV, only mentions Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikinews. --darklama 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In my view, Commons needs to adhere to global BLP policy, it is not exempt from what the Foundation Board said. ++Lar: t/c 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Get editing. :-) --MZMcBride 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be global and encompass all projects in all languages. I don't know why there would need to be unsourced, negative information about living people on any project. hmwithτ 14:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The "negative" part was removed to make the sentence apply to any unsourced statements, since people seem to agree that it didn't make sense for it to apply only to negative statements. As for unsourced, projects that allow original research may not be able to provide sources depending on what is meant by a "reliable source". This might be a non-issue though if projects are free to define what a reliable source is. --darklama 15:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource

This should apply to Wikisource as well. Where PD material is properly published, Wikisource is not the publisher - Wikisource is redistributing, which means the Wikisource editor is not "creating", "synthesising", etc. That absolves it of a lot of the responsibility.

We have already been using an unwritten "BLP" to delete material. For example, public US govt records about an employee or medical practitioner being fired - for living people we require proof (pagescans) to verify that the text is accurate, whereas normally we accept text in good faith it is accurate. There are other examples of previous "BLP" deletions that I could pull up if it is helpful.

I've been slowly filling in wikisource:Category:Biographies of living people, however that is being used for BLPs at the time of publication; those people are all dead now. With this policy, we may need to alter the name of that category to avoid confusion.

Also, Wikisource allows author pages about living people (e.g. wikisource:Author:Obama), and notes about each work - these parts are "new material" (not previously published) and so editors must be sensitive where a living person is involved. John Vandenberg 03:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It should definitely apply to Wikisource. You make very good points. hmwithτ 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement

Should this policy include provisions about enforcement? That is, some sites have strict policies that if users constantly insert unsourced negative statements, they will be blocked. Or, if a biography constantly receives vandalism, it will be protected indefinitely.

Any thoughts on including provisions like this? Or should we leave it to individual projects? --MZMcBride 03:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something along the lines that projects must ensure compliance (some projects might prefer to full protect BLPs for instance or to not have BLPs at all) instead of specifying blocking as the solution. MBisanz talk 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
We should leave some discretion to individual projects, but there should be a minimum standard of enforcement. Kevin 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, inasmuch as we require that the content be removed, certainly. --MZMcBride 17:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Advertising this discussion

I've done my best to advertise this discussion. I posted at b:Wikibooks:Reading room/General, n:Wikinews:Water cooler/policy, w:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), w:Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), w:Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, and Wikimedia Forum.

Please feel free to advertise this discussion anywhere else (esp. the mailing lists, non-English projects, etc.). Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

negative statements

It is the responsibility of every project to remove any and all unsourced negative statements in biographies of living people immediately and with prejudice. - As far as I understand NPOV this guideline has to cover all unsourced, not just negative information. Syrcro 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a specific distinction between negative unsourced and normally unsourced due to the distinctions in possible harm that each of them can cause. Altering a BLP article adding a line with a structure such as "<The person> has been taking on a severe anti-<subject> stance due to negative comments in public" is much more of a WP:NPOV issue then an unsoruced statement about a birthday date.
What i am more interested in is cover criticism and praise in a balanced and neutral manner. It is fairly easy to indentify attack pages and promotional texts due to the way they are structured. Yet how would be cover the notable individuals that society shuns such as murderers? Describing a murderer will inherintly lead to a more negative biased article - how can such texts be balanced between good and bad? Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 07:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If the aim of this policy is to prevent harm to living subjects, then we would need to determine what is "negative" from the perspective of the subject. Seemingly innocuous statements may in fact be harmful to the subject. As an ideal goal we should aim for no unsourced material whatsoever, so I believe that this policy should use a (much) broader definition than "unsourced negative statements". Kevin 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just saying that removing unsourced, negative material is of absolute, utmost importance. The main goal should be to keep from doing harm to peoples' lives. hmwithτ 13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A variety of problems.

First, the proposal as written refers to "balance." Neutrality has a place per NPOV. False balance does not. Second, this would have potentially serious hampering effects on projects that allow certain forms of original research. In particular, the various Wikinews projects allow among other material direct interviews with subjects. A strict version of this policy would make statements made in those interviews that are negative about the subjects themselves questionable and would lead to serious problems if the subjects made negative statements about others. As a global policy this will create more problems than it will solve. JoshuaZ 19:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, agree with everything said here by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
You've lost me. On projects that allow original research, it is even more critical to ensure that living people are protected from untrue harmful statements. What problems do you envision by requiring that all original content on Wikimedia projects be sourced (esp. if negative) and appropriately reflect the life of an individual? --MZMcBride 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"A strict version of this policy would [...] lead to serious problems if the subjects made negative statements about others." Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying it would be A Bad ThingTM to have a policy that prevented Wikinews from publishing negative, false statements about other living people from interviewees? Jennavecia|Talk 17:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not about whether the statements are false; it's about sourcing and presentation. To use a trivial example on the right side of the line - if Barack Obama makes some outrageous claims about Kim Jong-il (or vice versa) then those claims can be included in Wikinews as the newsworthy views of a prominent person on a matter of public interest. If he says them in a properly recorded interview then they're sourced to him and there should be no problem with publishing the interview. However, the overall context of the report should provide you with, for example, the denial made by the other party or at least that a comment from them isn't yet available. Sourcing for a news organisation doesn't always follow the same lines as sourcing for an encyclopaedia and there are going to be lots of greyer areas than that simple and perhaps unlikely example - clearly Wikinews needs its own detailed policy on the issue (if it doesn't already have one then that's extraordinarily irresponsible) - but each interview can't reasonably be required to be neutral and balanced within itself. It needs to be clear that the interviewee is speaking for themselves, it needs to be clear that their views are suitable material for a news report and other well sourced views need to be available with suitable prominence. Of course an interview isn't necessarily regarded as a "biography" anyway - you probably need a different word or phrase entirely if you want this to apply to news reports, dictionaries, quotations (you can't expect individual quotes to be 'neutral' - you can expext detailed policies on when negative quotes about other living people are permissible for inclusion) etc. 87.254.70.250 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Jenna, please don't construct strawmen. It would be a problem if the policy prevented Wikinews from publishing negative statements sourced solely to Wikinews interviewees. And despite the anon's statement above, that's exactly what this sounds like it would do. I'm also concerned about the use of the term "balance" above and that is going to need to get addressed as well. JoshuaZ 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not a strawman, Joshua. It is a question. Be so kind as to answer it rather than, well, construct a strawman. Thanks. Jennavecia|Talk 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It would be a dangerous precedent to restrict the freedom of the press from on high, stating that the press must devote equal amounts of chunks of text to praising individuals as to criticizing them. And further, determining from on high what constitutes praise and criticism. These are all issues better suited for discussion on Wikinews locally, at the project-level. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you replying to me? That has nothing to do with my question. Jennavecia|Talk 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No, sorry for the confusion, was commenting further in response to the original comment by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO, this policy is junk (in terms of a global policy). Wikinews interviews people (Which is original research). What someone says about someone else, regardless of whether its true or not, makes no difference. An interview is an interview. If Obama called Kim-Il a raging homosexual, even though it's not true, then that should be removed? Why? Its not a matter of NPOV because that is Obama's belief. We cannot determine what he or anyone else thinks, unless they tell us so. So to remove that statement because "it will harm" someone is ridiculous. This policy would prevent us from reporting what A said to B because it will harm someone. That IMO is suppressing the news and a removal of such a statement could be considered censorship. At the moment, that is what this policy reads like: Censoring articles. DragonFire1024 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is bizarre. Cirt: Nobody's talking about restricting freedom of the press. You need to calm down. DragonFire1024: Huh? The issue isn't if Obama says "I hate Kim Jong-il" and Wikinews records that. The issue is if Wikinews contains "Bob Smith is being investigated for murder" and there's no basis for the claim. People regularly try to use Wikimedia projects as forums to air a grudge or to simply vandalize using untrue, negative statements. When you have sites as high profile as the Wikimedia projects are, there's an obligation to have guidelines about what is and isn't appropriate, no? --MZMcBride 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"First, the proposal as written refers to "balance." Neutrality has a place per NPOV. False balance does not." - JoshuaZ
*Points up*, exactly. Let us drop the "biographies of living people" topic for a moment and talk about something a little more clear cut, but still in the same vein of thought. You're writing an article about Luna (Earth's moon). Do you 1)write the article using the best verified knowledge available, or do you 2)give equal time to the verified knowledge and to some nutjob who claims that the moon is made of green cheese (a few such people still exist. They're all insane of course, but they exist nonetheless).
This false balance, as JoshuaZ puts it, has crept into the MSM ever so slowly as time has passed. It started out as a good faith effort to engage in political correctness, but it has taken on a life of its own. Now they will indeed give equal time to both facts and fantasy simply to insert some artificial "balance" into their articles. Facts are facts. There is no balancing opinion to give. Note that this faux balance is *not* the same as NPoV. Indeed, this false balance violates NPoV straight to the core, because it inserts bias in an attempt to artificially create balance where none exists.
Another example, though this one is only tangentially related to the topic at hand. I was commenting on a Wikipedia talk page about a year ago. I stated that the article's tone wasn't NPoV. Even though the article itself didn't take one side or the other, the tone was "balanced" so as to attempt to shift the reader's sympathies in one direction (a direction that went against the facts of the article). One of the authors of the article responded to me and invoked Godwin's Law. He said (paraphrased), "You wouldn't expect an article about Einstein to have the same tone as one about Hitler, would you?"
I was astonished. Of course I'd expect those two articles to have the same tone. The facts speak for themselves. It is not our job to try and bias the reader in one direction or another. It is not our job to attempt to create balance where none exists. You know what? Sometimes someone is just wrong. There is nothing that we can do about that, without becoming political pundits, and spinning their wrongness to our advantage. That is not a direction in which I I want us to go. Our purpose is to report the facts, not to make someone seem more correct than they really are. Gopher65talk 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
When I originally wrote the sentence, the thought in my mind was that you wouldn't want articles that only talk about the positive aspects and sound like a press release. And you wouldn't want articles that do the opposite. If there's a problem with a particular line, edit the page to make it better. :-) --MZMcBride 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
@MZMcBride (talk · contribs) - You incorrectly assume about my state of mind, I am in fact quite calm. :) Merely pointing out that it is wholly inappropriate to restrict the freedom of the press, externally from another project, as if from on high. Let Wikinews develop and enforce its own policies and processes, as the press and the nature of reporting is quite different from Wikipedia and writing biographical entries on individuals. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
MZMcBride: Done Gopher65talk 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
"cover criticism and praise in a balanced and neutral manner..." - this whole line should just be removed. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Done. [1]. Controversial line, does not have consensus, does not make sense. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews

A number of people have voiced concerns about how this would affect Wikinews (my home wiki) and press freedom. Might I suggest that this would not at all apply to Wikinews since we do not publish biographies. An interview with Barack Obama in which he makes some claim about Kim Jong-il does not amount to a biography of either person (using one of the above cited examples). Wikinews already has a policy under which all information must be sourced or verifiable. Articles at Wikinews are not like those at Wikipedia. Stubs, unsourced articles and other in-progress are not published or indexed until they pass a review. Wikinews uses Flagged Revisions (en.wikinews at least does). Maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that BLP would impact Wikinews as it doesn't apply. Cheers, --SVTCobra 22:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SVTCobra (talk · contribs). The nature of Wikinews is such that it is quite different from Wikipedia, we do not write historical biographical articles about individuals and this would not apply as such. Perhaps before imposing policy from on high, individuals should first read up on our existing policies and practices of review already in place at Wikinews. :) Cirt (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
By my count, there are 27 Wikinewses. All of them have detailed policies and practices when writing about living people? You seem to be considering only the English Wikinews. --MZMcBride 22:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SVT and Cirt, but the reality is: If this does become a global policy, then it *will" effect Wikinews. I have already had an experience with information either being removed, or completely deleted altogether, without the chance to correct the issue(s). We don't need that to happen again on Wikinews. In regards to my earlier statement, if something is said about someone that is bad, harmful, or untrue, (in the case of Wikinews and interviews) then there is no reason for it to be removed, or rebutted with a statement about what the other side says. Yes we have a NPOV policy, but that is not NPOV. It is an interview with the person being interviewed, giving their opinion on what Wikinews is asking them. If such a statement were removed, according to this policy, then we may as well do away with WMF censorship policies. A person's opinion is just that. And the answer the person gives, also depends on the questions asked. This policy just simply does not make sense for Wikinews (in its current form), whether it applies to us or not. DragonFire1024 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with this version. :) Cirt (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
True, I am thinking of English Wikinews (I can't read the others) and en.wikinews may be the only one using Flagged Revisions, but I doubt any of them engage in biographies. But if they do or if they allow unsourced material then I suppose that this policy could be used to protect innocent living people from slander. What I am saying is that the people from my en.wikinews, need not fret. BLP won't apply to what we do. And if someone does manage to get (MZMCBride's example) "Bob Smith is being investigated for murder" through our review process and FlaggedRevs without sources and publishes it, then yes it should be removed immediately. This is inconceivable unless there's a conspiracy of multiple users. Therefore, I don't oppose the policy as long as it is agreed that it doesn't apply to sourced news articles. Those are not biographies. If you want to use BLP to strike down unsourced items that 'slipped' through, well fair enough ... though they should/would be deleted anyway per existing policies. --SVTCobra 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
If it would just delete information that slipped through the cracks of the existing policies on English Wikinews, then it wouldn't really affect the project much. It would actually help it to become how it is meant to be, per policies. I think we're all actually on the same page. hmwithτ 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that if someone Wikinews interviews says something negative about another person, living or not, then that is the person's opinion, and thus part of the news article being constructed. It is just simply not possible for WN to insert a line or two after every statement to back up or to disprove such statements. If every word or phrase is removed because it happens to reflect negatively on someone, then we would be left with a lot of nothing. There are articles daily on many other sites that report on what someone said about someone. Take Televangelist Pat Robertson compares same-sex marriage to child molestation, pedophilia for example. He basically told off the gay community with his rant. Does that mean we should remove his statement because it reflects negatively on homosexuals? I think not. I am sorry, but I just don't see this policy as being relevant for Wikinews at this time. DragonFire1024 17:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point. It isn't about rebutting every criticism leveled by an interviewee. If that news article about Pat Robertson said, "Robertson has been investigated by police for possible pedophilia and child molestation incidents," that would be an issue. --MZMcBride 21:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

This Wikinews issue is simple. Any BLP policy that is Wikimedia-wide must exempt Wikinews and rely on the project's journalistic code of ethics. Policies on sourcing and providing reporter's notes as input to the review policy enforced with FlaggedRevs catch any of the other concerns that a global policy imagines it is the caped crusader to solve. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how what has been said demonstrates that Wikinews must be exempt. When someone is interviewed, the interviewee is the source of the information. When a news story says "X said 'blah blah blah'", "X believes 'blah blah blah'", or "X thinks Y believes 'blah blah blah" you are including the source of the information (X being the source). --darklama 13:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Positive statements

I have a question. You say that this should apply only to negative statements because of the harm that could come from such statements. You're therefore attempting to claim that false positive statements do not have any chance of causing harm? Let's say, just for a moment, that there is a biography of... I dunno... the CEO of Apple on Wikipedia (I'm sure that there is one). He has cancer, last time I checked, and has had to delegate some of the day to day operations of the company to others.

So, someone goes on Wikipedia and, just for a lark, inserts the line "Steve Jobs has been cured of cancer. Sources at Apple claim that he will be back in full control of the company by next week". Just by random chance some important investment broker reads this unsourced (and untrue) statement, and thinks that it is true. He directs his investment company to invest 10's of millions in Apple stock. Other investment firms see this, think that he has an inside scoop, and do the same, investing billions altogether. CNN sees that investment companies are acting on this "news", so it *must* be true. They run with the story. Millions of people like, say, you, all see the CNN story and run to their computers and madly click the "buy Apple stock" link, trying to get in on the meteoric rise of the share price. Apple's share price goes sky high, due to the huge demand for the stock.

Unfortunately, the next day Steve Jobs succumbs to his cancer:-( (note that this is just an example. I'm not predicting anything). The investment firms manage to bail out of Apple stock with only minor loses, but millions of individual investors, people like you, lose everything in the stock crash.

Are you trying to tell me that that wouldn't be a bad thing? If you accept that false positive information can indeed be as bad as negative information, then why are you emphasizing *negative* false information in this policy? Surely any false information has the potential to lead to sudden catastrophic consequences, under the right circumstances.

So to me, we should be emphasizing that *all* known false information is bad, and should be removed. Well, don't we already have policies that state that on every wiki out there? This entire policy is redundant, and therefore unnecessary. QED. Gopher65talk 22:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No. False information in an article about bird varieties is far different from false information in an article about a living person. <insert whichever Latin phrase that equals "I thought this was common knowledge"> --MZMcBride 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

I feel this policy is rather unnecessary. Most if not all major WMF projects already have some sort of policy similar to this one, and it seems rather redundant to have a global one. I also believe that these sort of policies should be made at the local level, on a project-by-project basis, so they can be altered as necessary to meet each project's needs and scope. Having a global policy could conflict with some projects' goals (possibly Wikinews for instance, see above discussion). Just my thought. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs). These are things best discussed locally, at the project-level. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It's important to be clear to the outside world and the involved community that content that may harm living people is especially critical. Having a global policy (even if it's broad) is a step in the right direction. --MZMcBride 02:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Every project must act responsibly and minimize harm by removing any and all unsourced statements in biographies of living people immediately and with prejudice. - Well, certainly this part makes a lot of sense to me. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
It may make sense, but it only becomes really applicable on Wikinews when you get around to writing someone's obituary. We have moves afoot to take prepared obits out of public view, but the concern that a subject searching for mentions of their name on Wikinews could lead them to an obit is kinda unique to Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Quite right, a very good point. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Simplify

Any global BLP policy should be broad/vague enough to not conflict with the needs of individual projects; but once such a global policy exists it would tend to create temptation to add detail to it. Therefore, if there is to be a global policy at all, it should be phrased simply, so as to minimize this temptation. I think the current draft is saying a lot less than it appears to: the first bullet requires projects to follow another policy that they're already required to follow; "use reliable sources" is said in three different ways in disjointed locations (first bullet, first half of second bullet, and final sentence); and the list of things that might be misrepresented is too long — anything requiring this long a list is leaving something out. As an example of how it might be tightened up, how about:

At all times, biographies of living people should use only reliable sources, and minimize harm by avoiding speculation and misrepresentations of both opinions and facts. Every project must act responsibly and minimize harm by removing any and all unsourced statements in biographies of living people immediately and with prejudice.

Pi zero 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. The more I look into the status of NPOV, the less I understand it. The resolution is written in a way that seems to assume NPOV is gospel, and so is this BLP policy ("Wikimedia's fundamental principle", indeed); but it looks like it actually doesn't apply to any project or situation unless explicitly invoked. Well, if that is the case, then I doubt it should be invoked here, either, as it makes more sense globally to require merely that opinions should not be represented as facts, which is already covered in the alternative wording above. Pi zero 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree this proposal should keep things simple and broad/vague enough not to conflict with the needs of individual projects. I like your tightened example better than the current revision, for the most part. I think it needs to mention speculation still. People can still cause harm through speculation even if attempts are made not to misrepresent opinions or facts. I also agree that NPOV doesn't need to be explicitly invoked here. Individual projects should decide whether NPOV issues exist for a given BLP, or if NPOV even applies to a given situation. --darklama 15:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added speculation back in; point well taken. (And yet... what was I just saying about the temptation to add detail?) Pi zero 16:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV is gospel. Happy‑melon 09:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It is a founding principle (which makes it an "ideal essential to the founding of the Wikimedia projects" and a "guiding editorial principle"), but apparently not a policy except on Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikinews. Pi zero 13:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of 'positive' (in a NPOV) unsourced statements

This will decimate most BLPs.

At the risk of a lack of conciseness, we need to allow non-negative content more leeway.

Alternatively we need to explicitly consider existing BLPs separately and announce widely and often that every sentence in new BLPs needs a reference.

And what does "with prejudice" mean here?

Don't assume good faith for edits that add unsourced content; or
When unsourced content is deleted it should be removed from the edit history; or something else?

Mark Hurd 08:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As someone mentioned in another section, positive statements can also cause harm if people act on what was said. I agree though that BLPs shouldn't necessarily require citations or references for every sentence. If a person is using a single source for all the information included in a BLP then only a single source should be necessary. I don't think this proposal is saying every sentence would need a reference, but clarifying the proposal could help. English Wikibooks usually includes references for an entire book rather than for individual sentences or statements. I think the sentence is trying to say anything that isn't sourced must be dealt with quickly and that people must not favor some unsourced statements simply because they believe it to be true/accurate. --darklama 11:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Distinguishing between negative and positive statements too much can also lead to what amounts to whitewashing. JoshuaZ 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No

Trying to keep BLP policy on a single wikipedia under control is bad enough. Haveing to worry about a global policy at the same time? That way madness lies.Geni 23:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh? You've lost me. Because it might be difficult, we shouldn't do anything? --MZMcBride 06:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd thought the intent was more like, "Because it would create serious problems, we shouldn't do this." Pi zero 14:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Including anything else?

Does the current version of this page (cf. http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1492206) incorporate everything that should be incorporated? Is it missing any key pieces or components?

And, more generally, what are the procedures to get more outside community involvement in this discussion? --MZMcBride 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The only thing left that comes to mind are that the resolution referred to doesn't limit itself to biographies, it refers to any works about living people, so the proposal and the name of the proposal should reflect that as well. I have no idea how to get more community involvement. I suppose find someone who can change the default/global site notice to include mention of this proposal and hope someone will? --darklama 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. What makes me hesitant to moving this to something like Living people is that it the Board resolution was also titled "Resolution:Biographies of living people." The symmetry between a new global-ish policy and the Board resolution seems to be beneficial. Perhaps it would be best to simply clarify the language in this page to underscore that it applies to more than simply a strict biography from an encyclopedia? Your thoughts? --MZMcBride 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I guess just a clarification of the proposal could work. I just wonder if it would just cause confusion without a name change though. In any case I've gone ahead and made some changes (http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biographies_of_living_people&oldid=1500420). --darklama 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
As the text now reads,
  • It calls for taking something down only if it "is unverifiable and has no reliable sources". Is there a difference between "unverifiable" and "having no reliable sources"? If there is a difference, then perhaps it should say only the first, or say only the second, or say "or" rather than "and"; if there is no difference, then it should say only the first, or say only the second.
  • It says nothing about taking down things that are not new or original; should it?
  • It says nothing substantive about taking anything down unless requested by the subject; should it? (It does say "or required by local policy", but that's a no-op since if it's required by local policy then it doesn't matter whether global policy also requires it, and there is no requirement that local policy make any special provision for BLP.)
Pi zero 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I was going for something like "fix it or take it down if its unverifiable and no reliable sources can be found when requested by the subject".
  • Some people voiced concerns about censorship. If its not new or original are there any reasons to taken it down? Sometimes myths, rumors, old wives tails, etc. about a person have become part of pop culture and those might be worth mentioning. I think by not include old or unoriginal stuff, some protection against censorship can be maintained, while not protecting edits by people who are trying to use wikimedia projects to start rumors, smear campaigns, etc.
  • By saying nothing substantial projects can have more freedom to interpret what it means. Should projects be required or strongly advised to include specific provisions for works discussing living people? Having a local policy was intended to be optional and mentioned mainly for the purpose of explicitly saying "hey projects can have a local policy if they want to" since some people expressed concerns that projects should develop there own policies instead.
  • Also by limiting it to anything new or original and including "when requested by the subject" as a minimal requirement, I was thinking it should continue to allow original reporting or research on projects which allow it, while likely having no ill effects on projects which don't. I was hoping that could address both censorship concerns and concerns about how this proposal could effect original research.
Got any specific suggestions for improvement? I was hoping I had found the right balance for this proposal. --darklama 04:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Unless it is proposed to decline item 1 in the board resolution, something is missing here because "... or when required by a project's local policy" begs the issue of ensuring that such policies are in place. Whether or to whatever degree it may be appropriate to set minimum standards for the content of such policies, I believe the board's urging on this point should be accepted and upheld. I do not believe it is adequate to have a default global policy that puts the onus on an article's subject to to raise an objection. ~ Ningauble 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying you don't think "...or when required by a project's local policy" can satisfy item 1 of the resolution? I disagree. If projects are required to follow the minimal requirements of a global policy or the requirements of a local policy than either way there is a policy in place for all projects and that upholds the board's recommendations. I think the proposal may actually go above and beyond what the resolution calls for since principles generally focus on ideals and not on what must happen. I think putting the onus on the subject to raise objections may be the only way not to have a negatively impact on projects which allow original reporting or research, or projects which host previously published works. Projects can also include additional requirement or standards that doesn't put all the burden on subjects in their local policies. --darklama 23:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm with Ningauble on this. Item 1 says there must be policies in place that accomplish certain things; granted, the things to be accomplished are more spirit than letter. It doesn't say the policies in place have to be local, but if we don't require local policies (as in the possible alternative wording I suggested below), then the global policy has to accomplish what the item asks for. The current wording seems not to require any action unless requested by the subject (at least, it could be interpreted that way), whereas I believe the spirit of the resolution is more proactive than that. Pi zero 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Any suggestions for how to be more proactive that can work with the needs of every project? --darklama 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the intent of terms new and original, in this context.

  • Is original different from unverified (i.e., lacking a reliable source)?
  • Suppose there's a statement up on a page, that has been on that page for a long time, and it says that many years ago, [insert identity of living person here] was rumored in certain circles to [insert really disgusting vile practice here]. Is that statement old?

Pi zero 23:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes original can be different from unverified. To give an example. A subject tells you something that hasn't been previously reported anywhere else. In that scenario its new or original information. I could possibly verify it for myself if I were to get into direct contact with the subject. On projects which allow original reporting or research I think contributors would be expected to assume good faith. That is everyone would be expected to assume that you had verified the information before introducing it or know the information to be true because you had interviewed the subject yourself (probably an oversimplification). On other projects you would likely be expected to provide proof by citing sources that are considered reliable as a means of verification and you wouldn't be able to.
  • The intent is not for the meaning to refer to age, but rather "Is this the first instance where its been reported or introduced?" or something along those lines. So the statement is by no means old by that criteria alone, though perhaps if its been there for long enough to become part of popular culture it might make sense to include it with corrections, perhaps even rephrased, such as "it was once rumored on [project] that [insert identify of living person here] in certain circles [insert really disgusting vile practice here]. [insert verified information here]" --darklama 01:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
That's helpful clarification; thanks. These terms seem less than ideally self-explanatory, though a remedy isn't immediately obvious to me. (I haven't lost track of the goal of specific suggestions, and do hope to devise some.) Pi zero 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree its not ideally self-explanatory. I also could not think of a more self-explanatory way to say it then the way I wrote it. --darklama 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have revised the second sentence of the paragraph, trying to make explicit the distinction between speculating/misrepresenting, and talking about those things that were done by others. Hopefully this is in line with your intent here, also. The final sentence still needs fixing; that's an even thornier problem, but I expect to propose something in the next few hours. --Pi zero 23:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have attempted a revision of the final sentence. I'm not at all sure of some of the precise wording. Pi zero 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

An alternative

As a more inherently robust alternative to the current proposal, how about a global policy that does what the resolution actually calls for, rather than doing something else that we hope will cause that without also causing incidental problems in particular projects, present or future?

The Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees passed a resolution in April 2009 that recognizes the challenges surrounding biographies of living people.
In accordance with that resolution, all projects in all languages that describe living people should have must put policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles.

Pi zero 13:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that does what the resolution calls for. It just repeats what the resolution calls for. --darklama 14:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The distinction being, presumably, that the resolution recommends rather than prescribes. The straightforward adjustment to the above alternative would be to replace "should" with "shall" — but that would call its minimalist status into question, because it would then be requiring something that is not required by the proposal currently on the content page. Interesting. Pi zero 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I've modified the wording (striking out the old). Pi zero 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A stronger alternative re. item 1

Simply admonishing projects to make policies by affirming the board's wishes may not produce results. A more effectual way of ensuring policies are put in place is to proscribe BLP content that is not expressly prescribed in policy. Perhaps something along these lines:

All projects must act responsibly and minimize harm by quickly correcting or removing any content describing living persons that is not expressly permitted under policies that specifically address applying the principles of neutrality and verifiability to the sensitive situation of describing living persons.

This is likely too drastic for a first step, because communities would need time to prepare lest deletionism run amok. Ultimately, if Meta wishes to go beyond reiterating the board's urging, and instead implement what is urged, then some sort of community dynamic has to be created. This approach would implement item 1 in a relatively more organic way than some top-down alternatives. ~ Ningauble 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Implementation?

It's been about a month without much comment. Any final objections before this goes live? --MZMcBride 06:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's ready for prime time yet. I've been gathering my thoughts (for several weeks now) for a comment here on difficulties with the current approach; it's been taking a long time partly because I perceive the problems to be deep. I hope to post it here in the next day or two. --Pi zero 15:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm also worried about implementing this far reaching a policy with this little discussion. We've primarily had discussion from users from the English Wikipedia and from the English Wikinews here but no one else. That's a tiny fraction of the myriad projects. We need more input from the other projects especially the other language projects. The German Wikipedia for example would be an obvious one given that it is almost as large as the English Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 16:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Pi zero (talk · contribs) and JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), this is not ready for implementation. I made some changes to simplify the page a bit more [2]. Cirt (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to advertise the discussion. I've done what I can. If you have other means available, please use them. --MZMcBride 20:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been a month. Time to get rolling. Post it somewhere you think appropriate or let's get this done. Jennavecia|Talk 21:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please keep it local, thanks. Zanaq 05:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have no idea what your comment means. Can you clarify, please? --MZMcBride 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
It means: let's not make global guidelines, but let the individual projects decide for themselves. Zanaq 15:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
We have global policies for other things like Neutral point of view. Can you elaborate why you think having a global policy in this area is bad? --MZMcBride 20:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
NPOV is not global policy as such, but the foundation of wikipedia. Zanaq 15:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Advertising (list)

A list of places where this proposal has been advertised.

German translation

Eine Richtlinie zu Biographien lebender Menschen wurde auf m:Biographies of living people vorgeschlagen. Bitte schaut sie Euch an und gebt Rückmeldung auf m:Talk:Biographies of living people. --Dschwen 01:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! - Rjd0060 15:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Keeping harm from people by protecting them from rampaging Wikipedia contributors? How philanthropic. Isn't it rather that only living people can sue WP? Since neither dead people nor items can do that, it is probably no coincidence that for these, the way Wikipedia is working with sources seems to be still fine. Since this whole sueing problem exists mainly in the USA, and en.WP to my knowledge already has taken measures, I see no need to impose any new policy on a global scale. In fact, I stongly oppose the proposed resolution, as it is not only unnecessary, but could also be abused as a leverage for censorship against Wikipedia. -- 790 19:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of this policy. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia contributors, it's about the subjects of biographies. What people write in a biography on Wikipedia or Wikinews or Wikisource can have a real, serious impact on real lives. People can (and have) been harmed by content on Wikimedia projects. This policy says that information about biographies of living people should be sourced and accurate; if there is information that is unsourced it should be removed immediately. What do you object to specifically? --MZMcBride 20:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
MZMcBride, you may not know, but :de has a rather weak BLP policy and there is even less effort to enforce it. And it seems there are people who take advantage of this situation and don't want to have it changed. Respecting standards as outlined in the new WMF resolution has actually less to do whether a victim of Wikipedia-based defamation can sue Wikipedia or single editors, but with respecting human rights. --Túrelio 08:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Answering to both of you, I would like to bring to your attention the fact that if a human right to privacy regarding one's Wikipedia entry is derivable derivable from the w:universal declaration of human rights (which is not entirely obvious to me for several reasons), then probably also derivable is a right to w:freedom of information. Both ideas are sometimes mutually exclusive, and alway subject to balancing. Here, an attempt is taken to shift this balance - per decree rather than by community vote - in a direction that I personaly feel not to be the right one, as general policies for removing unsourced statements are already in place, and are IMHO sufficient and exhaustive to protect anyones privacy on WP. A policy like this would do next to nothing to curb the inherent problem an open wiki faces when new information is introduced, and the implications of this on articles about living persons. An effect which seems much more likely to me that this policy would be abused by some, who could argue that critical information on public figures like politicans, although sourcable, does not fulfill the extended requirement to be sourced by what they personally think are "identified, suitably reliable source"s as the proposed policy demands. -- 790 19:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. ..."[3]. Surely you didn't mean to suggest a subjugation of the validity or application of Human Rights to a "community vote". --Túrelio 10:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
When it has come to quoting human rights to each other now, please note also article 19: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media". You can't jist take a sentence out of them and say "bang! that's why the policies of this project will be changed!". For instance, what the word privacy includes in this context is not necessarily everything you could possibly associate with it, especially in the context of publicly available information on public figures. Finally, why the suggestive tone? Like I was a proponent of some evil faction abusing Wikipedia for libel campaigns. -- 790 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I was just refering to your "an attempt is taken to shift this balance - per decree rather than by community". --Túrelio 18:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a collaborative project, so I prefer community votes on issues of policy. Do you have any on-topic comments or can I focus my attention elsewhere? -- 790 06:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
...but there's a lot of (supposed) "by-products": in Germany, for example. articles about people being conflicted in nazi-pasture. family-members and friends try to make it look harmless and argue exactly in the same way: "please be kind - don't overrate the pasture - they are still living, and their families will have disadvantages" and so on... in these cases i would never give in! --ulli purwin 02:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent revisions

I have recently made revisions to what were the last two sentences of the draft (these revisions), attempting to address some issues that were raised in an earlier thread (#Including anything else?).

  • The pre-existing sentence on avoiding speculation and misrepresentation of facts, which read
All works that discuss living people must avoid speculation and misrepresentation of facts.
became
Editors of works that discuss living people must not speculate or misrepresent facts. Note that it is possible, without speculation or misrepresentation, for an editor to present acts of speculation or misrepresentation by others; whether that presentation itself constitutes speculation or misrepresentation depends on how they are presented.
My intention here was to clarify that, for example, Wikinews can publish interviews in which the interviewee expresses views that would not be acceptable if the article presented those views as facts.
  • The pre-existing sentence on correcting or removing, which read
All projects that allow works about living people must quickly correct or immediately remove anything new or original about a living person that is unverifiable and does not have any reliable sources when either requested by the subject of the work or when required by a project's local policy.
became
All projects that allow works about living people must quickly correct or immediately remove anything new or original about a living person that does not have an identified, suitably reliable source. Suitability of sources for this purpose is judged according to each project's local standards.
Projects that describes living people are encouraged to put additional local policies in place providing for further special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles.
This revision altered the previous limitation of enforcement to cases where action is either requested by the subject or called for by local policy. That limitation had been suggested in a previous revision in order to avoid negative impact on projects that allow original reporting or research; this revision was intended not to eliminate the local dependency, but to shift it from dependency on a local BLP policy, to dependency on local standards of what constitutes a suitably reliable source. I'm honestly somewhat unsure to what extent the revision achieves its intent. The previous version also meant to flag out that local projects can have their own local BLP provisions, so an added final sentence in the new revision explicitly encourages that.

Pi zero 20:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the current draft better than that of a month ago. I made a change, and offer here a couple suggestions.
  • I tweaked the final sentence a little, mostly because it seems clearer to me:
Projects that describes living people are encouraged to put additional local policies in place providing for further special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles.
became
Projects are encouraged to put additional local policies in place that provide for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability when describing living people.
  • I suggest adding the following to explicitly address point 2 of the resolution:
Projects are expected to take human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest.
  • I am not comfortable with "new or original" in the third paragraph, and recommend removing it. Besides beings open to many interpretations other than the intent discussed above, this would appear to exempt non-new, non-original material from standards for reliability.
~ Ningauble 18:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Your improvement to the last sentence is an improvement. The words "new and original", once you brought them up, didn't seem to me to be a useful qualification in the context of the current sentence; if the other provisions in that sentence are sufficient protection against censorship, then they are sufficient protection against censorship, and if they aren't then that qualification isn't going to help. So I made both of those changes.
Only point 1 of the resolution calls for policies, so point 2 needn't be addressed. I'm very concerned that putting these words about "human dignity and respect for personal privacy" into a policy that talks about removing things would invite blatant censorship. The words are too open to interpretation. --Pi zero 02:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I must have failed to save the above mentioned tweak. Thanks for patching it in. (I still think "further" is redundant.) ~ Ningauble 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hadn't even noticed the dropping of "further". It had a certain air of "if you really want to bother" about it. I took it out. --Pi zero 13:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Your point about high-sounding phrases being an invitation to high-handed behavior is well taken. I am aware of some cases I consider egregious, and just thought a statement of principle here might help. Alas, I agree it is not objective enough for this context. ~ Ningauble 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


I have made some further changes:

Note that it is possible, without speculation or misrepresentation, for an editor to present acts of speculation or misrepresentation by others; whether that presentation itself constitutes speculation or misrepresentation depends on how they are presented.

became:

Acts of speculation or misrepresentations by others may itself be considered speculation or misrepresentation of the facts depending on how editors present it.

The note seemed out of place to me. I think I managed to preserve the intent though. Maybe "Hearsay by others may itself constitute speculation or misrepresentation depending on how editors present it" or "Unsubstantiated information from a third party may itself constitute speculation or misrepresentation depending on how editors present it" would be a better way to word it?

All projects that allow works about living people must quickly correct or immediately remove anything about a living person that does not have an identified, suitably reliable source. Suitability of sources for this purpose is judged according to each project's local standards.

became:

All projects that allow works about living people must quickly correct or immediately remove anything presented as fact about a living person that does not have a suitably identified and reliable source. Suitability for the purpose of this policy is judged according to each project's local standards.

I think the intent is for facts to include reliable sources and deal with things presented as facts so I tried to reflect that. Requiring reliable sources for "anything" without specifics is too broad.

Projects are encouraged to put additional local policies in place providing for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability when describing living people.

became:

Projects are encouraged to put into place local standards paying special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability of facts when describing living people. Projects which allow primary or secondary research of living people are also encouraged to have local standard in place paying special attention to the need to present new research in a way that avoids misrepresentation of the facts. New research may result in acts of speculation or misrepresentations of the facts depending on how editors present new findings.

Some projects already have standards in place and don't need additional ones, while some projects may not. Either way all that should matter is that standards are in place right?

I noticed references to "original" and "new" information was removed from the proposal and I can understand why. Those terms allowed more interpretation than what I intended when I added them. However I think something was lost in the process. Specifically problems it can cause for projects which allow research. I think on a global scale a global policy should only deal with speculation and misrepresentations when presented as facts and only require there removal or correction when presented as facts. I think for projects which don't allow original research, there are already local standards in place to deal with non-factual information and how information should be presented. --darklama 18:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


In the passage that used to read
Note that it is possible, without speculation or misrepresentation, for an editor to present acts of speculation or misrepresentation by others; whether that presentation itself constitutes speculation or misrepresentation depends on how they are presented.
my intention was to make it very clear that the prohibition against speculation/misrepresentation would not necessarily prohibit things like objective reporting about a hoax. It's all very well to say that wikimedia editors can't speculate/misrepresent, but they do need to be able to present the fact that someone else did so. The rewording of the passage seems to be emphasizing the other side of this, that reporting about someone else's transgressions might not be permitted, which is of course true but should already follow from the primary prohibition. Here is an alternative wording:
Editors of works that discuss living people must not speculate or misrepresent facts. This does not prevent an editor from reporting the fact that some third party has speculated or misrepresented facts; whether or not such reporting is admissible depends on how it is presented by the editor.
I may implement this later today or tomorrow, but I'm not doing so right now (giving myself, as well as others, some time to think about it first).  Pi zero 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Here is the rewording I've actually put in place:
Editors of works that discuss living people must not speculate or misrepresent facts. This does not prevent an editor from reporting the fact that some third party has speculated or misrepresented facts; whether or not such reporting is itself speculation or misrepresentation of facts depends on how it is presented by the editor.
I adjusted it to further clarify that presentation by the editor determines only whether it is speculation or misrepresentation of facts, not whether it is altogether admissible (which would also depend on suitable sourcing). --Pi zero 12:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed today the resolution doesn't actually mention "facts", rather the resolution refers to the need for accuracy. I've tried to update the proposal by reflecting that:
Editors must take great care to assure accuracy when writing about living people due to the real-world impact that these works may have. Projects are also encouraged to put into place local standards paying special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability of facts when writing about living people.
I think that does a somewhat better job of introducing the policy and explaining why it is needed.
Any inaccuracies presented as a proven fact about a living person which cannot be verified must quickly be corrected or immediately removed unless a suitably identified and reliable source can be found. Suitability for the purpose of this policy is judged according to each project's local standards. This does not prevent editors from reporting inaccuracies by a third party; whether or not such reporting is itself a misrepresentation of facts depends on how it is presented by editors.
I've removed the bit about speculation because I think original theories, hypotheses and speculations by editors are allowed to a certain extent on projects which allow primary or secondary research, and other projects should already have policies in place forbidding primary and secondary research which I think would forbid speculation by editors too. I also added proven in there because I think facts aren't as likely to be provable when original research is involved, while at the same time original research shouldn't be presented as a proven fact without other sources. I think other projects are unlikely to allow facts which haven't been proven yet without sources already.
Projects which allow primary or secondary research are encouraged to put into place local standards which pay attention to the need to present new research finding on living people in a way that assures neutrality, objectivity, and which assures that original theories, hypotheses and speculations don't mislead or misrepresent the facts.
This is to encourage projects to come up with standards for unproven facts, theories, hypotheses and speculation to assure accuracy in what is written when it comes to primary and secondary research. Like "X has strong republican views despite being a democrat. X has been seen talking to A, B, C who are all republicans. X has voted in support of bill J1 which most democrats opposed. A, B, C all supported bill J1 as well." might be acceptable if "strong republican views" is an editor's speculation, theory or hypothesis, the rest of what was written were facts researched, and contributors considered it relevant to what is being researched. --darklama 20:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biographies_of_living_people/Archives/2009&oldid=1890284"