I have just learned of a project called "Les sans images" which aims to create artwork to illustrate women's articles lacking an illustration. The Commons category is Category:Les sans images. I reverted multiple instances of what I considered non-notable "fan art" being added to BLPs until I learned of this movement just now. It appears to have begun at the French Wikipedia around 2021, but some images are in use here. I'm bringing this to the community's attention (assuming there have not been previous discussions on the topic) to see how we feel about the implementation of these images, and any guideline updates that may be necessary. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk18:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
There was a very recent discussion (can't remember which noticeboard it was on) regarding a similar instance of the inclusion of cartoon portraits of living people. The consensus reached, if I remember correctly, was in favor of exclusion; the determination was that if the cartoons were based on actual images, then they would not meet our copyright licensing requirements, and if they weren't based on actual images, then they were original research. Curbon7 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Here is the recent discussion which didn't actually reach a final consensus.
I support it, assuming that the images are sufficiently high quality and respectful of the person portrayed, and with the caveat that we remove them if the subject objects. (Unlike a photo, which we can argue to keep even if the subject objects, like an uncomfortable fact that we will often keep even if the subject objects, a non-notable sketch that we ourselves generated should be removed if the subject objects.) Some, even most, of the images in that category are high quality and respectful, and some ... aren't. Here are some examples of each in my opinion. (My opinion is just one editor's opinion, but I have uploaded a few images to illustrate a few articles in my time.)
High quality cartoon, but clearly a caricature. Since the subject is a comedienne, that may be acceptable in this case, but I can definitely see subjects that lack a sense of humor and would not like to be caricatured in this way.
High quality cartoon, but clearly a caricature. Since the subject is an activist, notable for being beaten and having her son be murdered, I think it is not appropriate for us to use a non notable caricature to illustrate her article; not funny.
Not a professional quality work. If the subject article were a BLP, I'd remove it immediately. Since it's not ... I'd still advise against using it there.
Not a professional quality work, and the article is a BLP. I'd be against using it there without explicit consent from the subject (and if we can converse with the subject, why not just ask her to release a photograph?)
The opinion that User:Curbon7 brings up "if the cartoons were based on actual images, then they would not meet our copyright licensing requirements, and if they weren't based on actual images, then they were original research" does not apply; images are an exception to the original research policy, we editors are explicitly encouraged to go out and make images of our article subjects to illustrate our articles, and a pencil and paper is no more or no less an instrument of illustration than a camera is. You can take a bad photograph of a person the same way that you can make a bad drawing - it's just easier to take a passable photograph than to make a passable drawing; many amateur photographs will be perfectly acceptable, while most amateur drawings will not be. --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I will reply to you here since you used two of my portraits.
I drew Aditi Mittal in such a colourful way because it’s how she appears in the numerous media I’ve seen her on. Colourful patterned shirts, coloured hair and coloured background.
As for Ahlam Khudr, I didn’t draw her in a funny way. She often is displayed using the V sign and with a flower crown. I depicted her as she appears in reality. EthicalComics (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Why would it include everything someone could draw like diagrams, graphs, charts, svgs of flags and symbols, etc., but kust specifically exclude drawings of people. This is senseless, and the vast majority of arguments I have seen against the stuff are mostly rooted in a Wikipedia:I don't like it mentality. Huggums537 (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I support this initiative. I actually don't see a problem using any of these drawings above for articles that have no illustrations provided they follow the commons rules (the judging of the "professional quality" I find is sometimes very subjective.). The use of colors in itself should not be an incentive to rule out a picture.
In some cases some drawings have triggered living persons to provide a free licensed photography (I cannot remember which one) and the drawing has been replaced by the photo. These images are usually done by professionals or experienced amateurs that have some notions of drawing portraits and published under free license. The actual process of using drawings for living persons is well known in the medias for exemple, where often drawings of trials are done instead of photographs. :There are many examples of personnalities illustrated with a painting or a drawing. I think furthemore we are loosing time that could be devoted to contribution instead of arguments and also, please consider how discouraging it can be for a new contributor on our projects to see their work that they have generously published under free license being brushed away and constantly criticized. Hyruspex (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I’m sorry to say I find it fairly damning to learn BLP subjects have been distressed enough by volunteer illustrations that they felt they had to release photos to ameliorate the situation. To me that says the depictions were out of line with our BLP policies against causing harm. Really all contributors should be apprised that their work like all work on the project could be subject to scrutiny about how it complies with these policies. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that judging "professional quality" is very subjective. The images labeled above as not being "professional quality" were created by a professional designer. I think it might be fair to say something like "not the formal style I associate with encyclopedias", but that's not quite the same as "quality". WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Woo. Nice catch. Found and uploaded a frame from the video to replace the drawing in the EN article, and will nominate the drawing for deletion on that basis. I still support the principle as above; it is not the case that every drawing has to be a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph, but in this case it seems clear that this one is. --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
By the way, I agree with the gloss you appended to the images above and also agree that WP:OR-concerns need not always forbid use of user-drawn images. So in principle user-drawn images may be used in some instances but I fear that, for the reasons you already mentioned and the derivative-work concern Curbon7 raised, those instances may be very few and may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I support the initiative, subject to the criteria outlined by GRuban above. There's going to be some degree of subjectivity to the decision to add any image, but we should prefer ones which are high-quality, respectful of the subject, and appropriate to the tone of the article as a whole. Nick Number (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the initiative is a positive one and support the inclusion of these images as a general principle. I think it's also important to remember that illustrators as much as other contributors will be working in good faith. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I support the initiative and endorse the excellent points made by User:Hyruspex above. It should be recalled that the use of references in art is a universally accepted practice and does not in itself constitute a copyright infringement, just like writing an article from several sources and without copy-pasting from any one of them is not plagiarism. I also congratulate Abecedare and GRuban on their finding, while underlining that their discovery was triggered by the existence of the hand-drawn portraits of Anna Tsing; it thus must also be in part put to the credit of Les Sans Image, further demonstrating the value of the project. In general we should value and encourage the production of original work, avoid putting our contributors in impossible situations (such as "it's either plagiarism or original research"), and strive to improve not only our articles but also the skills of our contributors. Rama (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't support use of these illustrations in articles. WP simply isn't equipped to judge whether they are of sufficient artistic merit to warrant inclusion, much less whether the tone is one the subject would appreciate. Judging an illustration is much more subjective than determining whether a photo gives a clear view of what a person looks like. The encyclopedic value of the illustrations is small, as an abstract drawing doesn't really convey a person's appearance. Their primary value would be as an artistic flourish, but we don't even allow MOS:PULLQUOTES, so I don't see why we would allow these on that basis.--Trystan (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
You seem to ground your argumentation on false premises: these drawings are not abstract, and photography very much carries artistic style. There is no reason they would be any less encyclopedic than photographs. Some might not be to everybody's taste, some might advantageously be replaced by better images; but I see no reason to refuse them on principle. As far as encyclopedic value goes, a good drawing is worth a good photograph, a bad drawing is worth a bad photograph; and in any case the thing to do with perfectible Free content is not to delete it, but to surpass it. Rama (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I have seen an image added to Eileen Kramer, and I'm not sure it is helpful. The caption to a photograph usually specifies "Kramer in 20nn", showing the point in time when it was taken. Here we have a generalised image of the subject (still active Nov 2022 aged 108), with no indication of its sources, and in a style which looks, to me, like a whimsical image rather than an encyclopedic illustration. PamD23:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
On further thought I have removed the image from Eileen Kramer because it is an unsourced addition to a BLP. If we allow unsourced images like this there is nothing to stop anyone from adding an image which completely misrepresents the topic, and that is dangerous for the encyclopedia. While the artists contributing at present are doing so in good faith, we know there are people out there with other agendas. PamD08:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
While I very much appreciate the spirit in which it was undertaken, I don’t think this initiative has proved helpful for en-wiki (which I specify only because I am a very limited contributor to other languages and can’t speak to their policies.) Every example I have seen either has the copyright issue mentioned above and/or is not a sufficiently serious representations for use as an encyclopedic portrait, from my POV (I would not use the image of Tsing above even if it were not copyvio). I don’t object to using, for instance, a professional courtroom sketch if we did have access to it, so I don’t think we need a rule against drawings, but I don’t think the project of soliciting volunteer drawings is working out. My two cents. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
To add. While not on par with GRuban’s experience, I do have more than 500 uploads to the Commons at this point. So my comments do not come from lack of concern with or attention to the challenges of illustrating women’s bios especially BLPs (rather the opposite—I am very concerned we maintain our standards when representing women.) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I would not call the image of Tsing "High quality respectful drawing". Divorced from the context of the photo it is copied from, the first thing it brings to mind to me is that it is a picture of a bird pooping on her head. The second thing it brings to mind is that her features have been exaggerated to look more Asian, perhaps based on her name and not the way she actually looks in the many photos one can find of her. Not the sort of thing we would want to show in a BLP, and especially not of someone who has written serious academic works on the problematic behavior of white men regarding Asian women [1]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Divorced from the context of the photo it is copied from, the first thing it brings to mind to me is that it is a picture of a bird pooping on her head. I didn't get to see the image, but this description is hilarious! I'm going to see if it is still visible in the page history... Huggums537 (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
MOS:IMAGEQUALITY encourages us to "Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter" and states "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE includes, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones" and "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." In the context of WP:BLPIMAGE policy, these guidelines seem to discourage the use of "ambiguous" images that do not 'look like what they are meant to illustrate' in BLP leads, such as the abstract portraits identified in this discussion, even when it is not possible to find an alternative image. There was also a brief discussion at Talk:MOS/Images#Sketches, drawings or paintings as photograph substitutes in July 2021, a more substantial discussion about BLP lead images generally at BLPN in April 2021, and a discussion about low quality images on an article Talk page in September 2021 that may be relevant to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I support the project "sans imagEs" in which I am active.
It is very important to distinguish the use of files on Commons and on Wikipedia pages.
There is no doubt that all these files can be used in an educational context and therefore should not be deleted. Alacoolwiki (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
In my view there are far too many issues with BLP, copyright and NPOV for amateur portrait drawings to be used in articles on living persons. Our priority should be to be faithful to the actual appearance of the subject and a truly faithful depiction will probably end up being a derivative of a copyrighted work unless the artist is very skilled - and to be frank, most highly skilled artists are not willing to work without compensation or credit (despite what the licensing terms may say, it's a reality that images from Wikimedia Commons tend to get shared throughout the internet without crediting the original creator). The examples presented above are (no offense to the artists) in no way suitable for use in articles, IMO. Besides the issues with copyright and encyclopedic style, the NPOV issues are a minefield, e.g. David Eppstein's note above that the drawing of Anna Tsing seems to exaggerate her "Asian" features. I'm sure this wasn't the artist's intention but one can imagine the outrage if someone complained about Wikipedia using a "racist caricature" to depict a woman scientist. What if someone wants to illustrate an article on a Jewish politician and happens to draw them with a slightly larger nose? Such things have been done in political influence campaigns, and been condemned as antisemitic [2]. What if the drawing leaves out a few blemishes or makes the person look a bit slimmer than they normally do? Is that just artistic license or is it enforcing unrealistic beauty standards on women?I ran into a similar issue a few years ago with someone adding amateur illustrations to a number of Canadian biographies (link). The images ended up being deleted on copyvio grounds because they were basically traced from copyrighted photos. Despite that, there were still issues with how accurately they depicted the subject. I remember in particular an illustration of Aliocha Schneider, who if you look him up on Google is a young, trendy-looking man - but the illustration made him look like someone's grandma. I think a better way to solve the issue of biographies without images might be an outreach campaign to encourage subjects or their representatives to release images under a compatible license through WP:VRT. Spicy (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Found and uploaded two pretty good (if I do say so myself) images for Aliocha Schneider after this mention. That said, speaking as someone who has done them regularly, outreach campaigns to subjects are HARD. Explaining to people why and how we need them to release images is HARD. (I've learned that:
Tell them "you need to be the photographer; take a selfie" and they will immediately steal an image from their last published magazine interview and pretend they own it. You'd think "look into a mirror holding a smart phone" would be simple enough, but they'd rather die than not have a professional image, but they aren't going to pay for a professional to release an image.
If they actually do have a professional quality image, they will send it in with the statement "you can use this on Wikipedia but we retain the copyright" - despite the fact that I told them that wouldn't work in the very email they're responding to.
The majority of article subjects couldn't edit their own web sites if their lives depended on it, so they will have to email it in to permissions-commons with a release.
Sometimes permissions-commons will make them jump through hoops to prove they own the image; I've had a request to scan in and mail their driver's license, I've had a claim that they need to email a release from the photography studio even though the photography studio closed 20 years ago, and in the country the photo was taken the law was that the client owned the copyright not the studio.)
I'm reminded of a story that Nicolas Slonimsky once told: briefly, he was challenged by a policeman one day, while walking in the street, to present his identity documents, and was unable to do so, having forgotten them at home. Slonimsky asked the officer to come with him to the public library, where he went to the stacks, pulled down a reference work, and showed his portrait in the book to the policeman to establish who he was.
The story gets to my feelings about this discussion: I think any illustration provided to any article should be realistic enough as to be easily used to identify the subject of said article. That's my prime concern in situations such as this; too often I find that the illustration, as created, is either too abstract, or too stylized, or too cartoonish to serve its stated purpose. I have no objection, on principle, to using a created artwork as the lead image in an article, but I think the style of artwork chosen needs to be considered carefully. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.22:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Strictly oppose these images. Way too many issues with them: inappropriate free advertising for the artist, tracing from copyrighted images without disclosure, universally unprofessional quality, and extreme stylization inappropriate for an encyclopedia, leading to pointless debates about whether a given drawing is "realistic" enough which would distract us from core encyclopedic work, i.e. writing and improving prose. What's wrong with a BLP lacking a photo? The lead must be sufficient to convey that the article is about a given person and not another of the same name. The intent behind these drawings is to fight systemic bias in who has a picture, yet it creates a new systemic bias in who gets a proper pic and who gets a childish drawing (others have disputed that they're childish, but sorry, they are). DFlhb (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm perfectly ok with this initiative. All of the "what-ifs" brought up by Spicy and DFlhb are no more important than any other ordinary what-if we might encounter in day-to-day editing. It amounts to nothing more than fear-driven decision making. It's almost like saying we should not have Wikipedia because what if thousands of people end up vandalizing it? Or, we're going to have to fight vandalism every single day for the next 20 years, let's not do it! I mean so what if there will be some issues with it. There are issues with any aspect of editing. Wikipedia:So fix it. In addition, Courtroom sketching continues to be a universally accepted form of news reporting into the modern day when we aren't allowed access to film or photo, and even the often unreliable use of Forensic sketching is good enough for the police or the FBI when they don't have a photo to use and the actual lives of people are really on the line so I think the use of sketching/cartoons/drawing is good enough for us when we don't have a photo. Huggums537 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Updated on 15:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Updated again on 16:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
My experience has been that people really do not understand that if they base a drawing of a celebrity off a photograph, they are violating the copyright of the photographer of the photograph. "Copyright owners have the exclusive right to authorize the creation of derivative works." So it seems like a copyright work-around rather than a realistic solution. Denaar (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
That isn't always true because it actually depends on several things including the copyright status of the photograph. Huggums537 (talk) 14:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
If we have a photograph of a person that is no longer covered on copyright... we would take the photo and put it directly on the page. There would be no need for artist involvement, other than to touch up the photo. Denaar (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, that is a fair point, but doesn't cover a myriad of other complicated situations such as instances where the artist has drawn from memory, or photos from public appearances, gained permission from the subject, or other subtle situations. Exactly how would you tell someone drew from a photo unless they included the exact same background, and clothing, etc.? Otherwise, you would just be drawing from the likeness of a person which isn't able to be copyrighted anywhere as far as I know. Huggums537 (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This makes the false assumption, or at least implies that plausible deniability is the only defense, alternative, or substitute to valid licensing. Huggums537 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
While that may be true in some cases, in the vast majority, it won't. Certainly, a person drawing a caricature of someone while looking directly at that person is not violating copyright, but a caricature based upon a photograph or video still of the individual likely would be, as it would be a derivative work. And if you're close enough for long enough to draw a decent caricature, why not just take an actual photo? SeraphimbladeTalk to me20:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
If a person were making a drawing based on a composite of dozens or hundreds images they had studied about the individual, then that would not be any violation of copyright. Like I said before, unless a person makes an actual copy of clothing they are wearing or other identifiable background material, then it would be extremely difficult to prove anyone had copied or even made a derivative work when it comes to drawing the caricature of someone since they don't own the caricature. I'm pretty sure that is why the law doesn't allow for a violation of copyright to occur unless some kind of commercial gain or privacy breach has been involved in most states. Huggums537 (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
You're kind of showing a misunderstanding of copyright in general. Copyright isn't a state matter, it's always been a federal one, so copyright law does not vary by state. You can breach copyright without making any financial gain; profiting from a copyright violation is considered an aggravating factor, but "I didn't make any money from it" is not a defense against infringement. And privacy laws are entirely separate from copyright law. So, given that you've already gotten three out of three things wrong there, I don't think I'm inclined to take you very seriously on that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess I should have more specifically said the law doesn't allow for a violation of copyright to occur on the ownership of a persons caricature unless some kind of commercial gain or privacy breach law has been involved. However, Stanford university seems to think Nevada has some state copyright laws that aren't that great, and this article seems to think your state rulings on copyright concerning government works and public records can vary to the point of resulting in opposite outcomes for New York and Florida. So, your idea that copyright is strictly federal, and doesn't vary state to state is not exactly accurate. Also, one of the four factors of determining the fair use defense is whether the use was commercial or not (i.e. "I didn't make any money from it"). Anyway, how would you know the difference between someone using one video still, and someone studying several videos over a period of time to get the impression of a caricature they can work with in their mind? I'd say it would all fall under fair use, and would not be any different than if they had seen the person live and studied them for a while. Huggums537 (talk) 21:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess the difference would be that if they saw them live they could just take the photo like you said, but if they were studying photos, and films of a person they would not be allowed to take a photo of the film or take a photo of any of the pictures of the person because that would be an illegal copy, but there has to be some kind of creative expression allowed at some point where it is ok to make an ordinary caricature based on other likenesses. Huggums537 (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
The idea that has been present here that an artist rendition just absolutely must have been a copyright violation from a photo or video still frame is an extremely bad faith insult to creators. Huggums537 (talk) 22:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
BTW, another one of the four factors is if the work is transformative, and I'm pretty sure that transforming a bunch of photos and films into a single cartoon image counts. Huggums537 (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
IMO, those cartoons/illustrations/drawings fail MOS:IMAGEQUALITY since the images are too ambiguous (not to mention amateurish). Without a link or caption to the cartoon on the right, for example, no one would know who exactly that drawing is trying to depict. And imagine adding this silly-looking cartoon to an article about a murder. Some1 (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the link captions thing probably would have been a good point except the same could be true of a photograph of a person as well since the image of a person without a caption doesn't tell you anything either unless the person happens to be highly recognizable. Not to mention the fact that these images should be attached to articles to explain who they are because images are not supposed be articles unto themselves, but only helpful to understanding context. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE "They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones, especially on pages with few visuals.", and "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." So, in my mind when you put all this together it means that a good caption is duly warranted, but all this fuss about these images having to be exact replica authentic quality representations is a bit much. I think that as long as you have a reasonable basic physical description of the person embodied in the illustration with a good caption to go along with the article it would be attached to, then it would be good enough to use until something better could be found. Even in the examples you provided here they are reasonable depictions of basic physical descriptions. For example, the image to the right with the person in glasses wearing the dark colored t-shirt that says, "Youth Climate March" matches most of the basic physical appearances that I found and studied when I searched for them on the web i.e., young female with shoulder length dark wavy hair, and light or olive complexion who wears glasses and is "fist pump" active in climate change. We don't really need much more than what is in this illustration to get the basic context of this person. Is it flattering? Not really. Is it an accurate depiction of her likeness? That depends on what you are calling accurate, and it depends on how accurate it really has to be. If you are saying accurate means that it has to look exactly like her, then it fails miserably, but if you are saying accurate meets basic physical descriptions that give you a reasonable context of the person, then I'd say it is pretty accurate. The same is true of Bridget Cleary. The image we have might be an accurate one, but it isn't really that much better than the cartoon depiction because it is so blurry all you can make out is basic physical description anyway, and all I can really glean from that is that she was a white female because hair and eye color are really not possible to verify or make out due to lighting or contrast. I can only guess that maybe she was blonde with blue eyes from my study of other images on the web, but my point is that the cartoon depicts just as much context as the actual photo we have of her even including the old timey dress. Huggums537 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Support images Very soon we are going to be dumping 2-3 copyrighted photos into the AI generator and get out a perfect public domain AI-generated photo, and have public domain photos for every article subject who has ever been photographed. As we make the AI transition, I do not think we should also commit to saying that realistic photos are the standard for depicting everyone. I also do not think we should start seeking consent from subjects based on whether we depict them as cartoons versus photos, because we never sought consent for low-quality photos in the past two decades nor does journalism do this anyway. If there is light editor stakeholder consensus for including a cartoon or depiction, then I think that light consensus from people who edit the biographies overrules scaled up objections from editors who are not editing those articles, but who oppose cartoons as a policy for 1000s of articles where they do not edit. Bluerasberry (talk)15:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. I detect no new argument being presented here that wasn't already addressed in Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 49#Cartoon portraits, which came to a clear consensus to not use such cartoons, so that consensus hasn't changed and isn't likely to do so. Some self-organized Wikipedian group pushing the idea doesn't make it a good one; see history of, e.g., WP:ESPERANZA for an example of a self-organized Wikipedian group running off the rails and being shut down. See also various community-closed wikiprojects, like the original WikiProject English. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
which came to a clear consensus to not use such cartoons I've looked through that conversation. In what sense did it come to a clear consensus? If there's any onwiki discussion I've seen this year that's "wildly unclear consensus underneath extreme and personal argumentation", it's that one. (This is about 'all drawings', to be clear, rather than 'those made by a specific person', which did have a consensus.) Vaticidalprophet23:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I wanted to pull together a few details about this policy's unusual history, and I'm hoping that y'all can help me figure out the missing bits in the timeline or correct any errors:
It was begun in 2005 and promptly declared to be a guideline. (WP:PROPOSAL didn't exist back then.)
In July 2006, an editor (who was later blocked as "an abusive sockpuppeteer") proposed that it be "upgraded" to a policy; there being support on the page page, this page was marked as a policy three days later.
In November 2008, there was a kerfuffle about overuse of deletion processes for unsourced BLPs, and an editor ended up getting blocked. At the time, the policy required the removal of statements that are both unsourced and contentious, but did not require unsourced articles to be deleted (unless they qualify for deletion through the usual processes, e.g., {{db-attack}}). What became BLP PROD was discussed here and was not a popular idea. Jimmy Wales began advocating for the deletion of unsourced BLPs. (I'm not sure that's the earliest comment, but it is probably the key one on wiki.)
In January 2010, ArbCom passed a resolution in lieu of a case (see Wikipedia:Summary motion regarding biographies of living people deletions), effectively saying that it was acceptable for admins to delete unsourced BLPs and that the community should consider updating the policy to permit this.
"When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."
Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion
'If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.'
The question that arises for me is exactly how many the sources have to be to be recognised as 'multiple'. In theory, 'multiple' is anything more than one, but if the formulation were really intended to mean that, you'd expect it to just say 'two or more' or 'at least two'. Since the word 'multiple' doesn't explicitly specify a frequent low number such as 'two' or 'three', it is often more likely to interpreted as an unspecified higher number. That's a very vague way to formulate a threshold for inclusion of information. An editor should have an explicit indication of the number of sources they have to find before they are allowed to add negative information to an article about a living person. Otherwise they can waste their time adding it and then having it reverted again and again, each time with the argument that the sources they provided still aren't 'multiple enough', with no clear and undeniable boundary in sight. So in my opinion the minimum number should be specified. For other kinds of claims, just one reliable source would be enough. I can see a case for requiring more than that for negative claims in BLPs, but demanding many more seems excessive to me, if the sources truly are reliable. Anonymous44 (talk) 08:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, Anonymous44. "Multiple" in this context means "more than one, although two might not be enough, and even three might not be enough if the sources are mediocre. Maybe 20 is not enough if all the sources are mediocre." In other words, the most important factor by far is the quality of the sources. Sources used to establish notability must be indisputably reliable, must be indisputably independent of the topic, and must, to the eyes of experienced editors, devote indisputably significant coverage to the topic. Policies and guidelines are rarely written with the precision that you are asking for. Wikipedia is based on consensus, so the number that you seek is based on your ability to convince other interested editors that the references that you are putting forward are adequate in the specific context where you are editing. Cullen328 (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by 'mediocre' - to my mind, either a source is reliable or it isn't. I'm not sure what you mean by 'indisputably significant coverage' either. I'm pretty sure that there is no formal policy giving special status and rights to 'experienced editors' and privileging their assessments, nor is there any official category of 'experienced editors'. Basically this sounds like you're saying: we do whatever the h**l we want around here - if we want to keep some information out, we keep it out and no rules can prevent us from doing that. Given the fact that editors often want to exclude information due to ideological or personal motivations, giving them such a pretext to veto its inclusion potentially indefinitely for vague or unspecified reasons seems like a very bad idea.--Anonymous44 (talk) 09:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Assuming bad faith of your fellow editors is a poor idea on a collaborative project, Anonymous44. Apt definitions of "mediocre" include not very good and not satisfactory. The reliability of a given source in a given context is a continuum, based on assessing many factors. It is not a black-or-white proposition, as you seem to assume. Fuzziness exists. You are correct that the concept of "experienced editors" is not codified in policy, but a consensus governed project will inevitably be influenced by behavioral norms and social capital. That figurative capital is accumulated by productive and collaborative contributions over time. I would submit that it is the contributions of many thousands of "experienced editors" that has kept Wikipedia among top ten websites worldwide for many years, and the #1 free educational resource ever created by human beings to date. When you make a bold assertion like Given the fact that editors often want to exclude information due to ideological or personal motivations, you are expected to provide actual evidence, because anonymous people on the internet are reliable sources for nothing. What the heck does editors often actually mean? One out of a thousand editors or 98.6% of editors? Or something in between? Of course ideologues edit. Why wouldn't they? That's why generalist editors, who have no axe to grind other than free knowledge presented neutrally, are essential to Wikipedia's success. Cullen328 (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
A consensus-governed project officially gives equal weight to the views of all editors who need to reach consensus; these editors are then free to be unofficially influenced not only by the substance of the arguments, but also by the social capital of their peers, however said capital may be accumulated (although they arguably shouldn't be), but they are not obliged to be that and you can't set up a rule based on that concept, as you did in your response to me. Your suggestion that the virtues of Wikipedia are due only to the "experienced editors" (wherever you draw the boundary between "experienced" and "inexperienced" ones) is elitist and disrespectful towards the good work done by the rest of the editors. Wikipedia is open to everybody and appreciates the contributions of everybody. As for my claim that "editors often want to exclude information due to ideological or personal motivations" - it's just a basic fact of life that everyone familiar with Wikipedia knows and requiring people to pretend that it isn't means just demanding hypocrisy. I could find many sources confirming it, but this is a talk page and not an article and I am not 'expected' to waste my time proving to you what you very well know to be true. As for how many editors are "neutral" and how many are "ideologically driven", it is enough that there is one out of a thousand to cause significant damage and to preclude a policy that just relies on everybody's good faith, but if I have to make an estimate based on my knowledge of both Wikipedia and humanity in general, I'd say that those who would be at least somewhat influenced by their ideology and sympathies - if not consciously, then at least subconsciously - when the criteria are vague, in an ideologically significant topic, are probably the majority. The difference between 'ideology' and 'neutral knowledge' is in the eye of the beholder.--Anonymous44 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
There's a discussion at WT:N right now about what Wikipedia:Significant coverage means. Mostly, it seems that people believe that coverage means wikt:coverage (second definition, the "amount and type of attention") and that significant means that there is a lot of coverage (I add: that we can use in practice). However, there is a minority that says significant means that the coverage indicates that WP:ITSIMPORTANT, either by directly stating that 'Alice Expert is a significant expert in this field', or by saying 'Alice Expert is <thing editors believe is important>'.
I am doubtful that we are going to achieve consensus for adding an actual definition. Having it be undefined lets those of us who know the game (e.g., me) manipulate the outcomes more easily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your refreshing sincerity. :) That said, Wikipedia:Significant coverage is a requirement for having an article about a subject at all. Here we're talking about including a specific claim in an already existing BLP article. Extending to that case the requirement for the topic to have been addressed in detail - so that it needs to be addressed in detail in the source in order for it to be mentioned at all on Wikipedia - seems excessive, and it's not in the policy either.--Anonymous44 (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Your note here has reminded me about the comment above "either a source is reliable or it isn't". I suggest comparing that idea against Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Overview, where the image caption says "Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement."
On the broader question of how an editor can force other editors to include information that they wish to exclude, I have been wondering recently how many current editors would endorse the statement in the Wikipedia:Editing policy that "As a rule, the more accepted knowledge it can encapsulate, the better [Wikipedia] is." Although in practice the number of words and pages increases every year, I've been seeing a lot of editors, especially newer ones, who seem to think that one generally improves Wikipedia by removing accepted knowledge (and not just around BLPs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Names in criminal investigations
Latest comment: 11 months ago26 comments10 people in discussion
For 2023 Lewiston shootings, there was a lot of fighting over whether the suspect's name (he was a person of interest at the time) should be included (it was ultimately settled in favor of inclusion). The argument was that it was prohibited under WP:SUSPECT (which is not a blanket prohibition in any event) because he was not a public figure; it got so intense that his name was actually being removed from the talk page and an admin was issuing warnings like this (he later tried to claim there was a consensus against it). To be clear: the police themselves identified him as a person of interest, he thus became WP:WELLKNOWN after being named in relation to a mass tragedy, there was no way to prevent harm to the innocent at that point because his name was being plastered all over the media, and there were no issues with BLP at all. What does everyone else think? Esszet (talk) 02:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This is completely normal procedure in such cases, BLP requires it, and multiple admins admonished other editors concerning their conduct in the rush to put a name in the article. Please read the archived discussions, and please better acquaint yourself with the community's consensus, rather than your personal views on the futility of protecting people who may be the subject of rumor concerning criminal accusations. Acroterion(talk)13:17, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
"Person of interest" is NOT the same as a suspect, and per BLPCRIME, we avoid naming names of non-notable individuals until there's a conviction or effectively conclusive proof by authorities that the person is arrested and arraigned. This is one of our strongest policies and cannot be overridden by local consensus. --Masem (t) 13:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Also a person does not become "well known" being even the only suspect or convicted person of a major crime. Well known is being Hollywood famous or a public figure. Not a name to even a major gruesome crime. --Masem (t) 13:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I think we're due a large community discussion on this. In many breaking news articles this goes out the window. It would be nice to have a solid large scale consensus to point to, and maybe tighten up the wishy-washy language around BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
So there is no consensus? And I'll say it one last time: attempting to protect the innocent in extremely high-profile cases like this is completely, utterly, and mindlessly hopeless and does nothing to protect their reputation. Just admit it, this "consensus" does not exist, and taking it the level of censorship is a moral crusade for nothing and a massive waste of time. Just give up and move on to something better, it's Wikipedia, not the end of the world. Esszet (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course there's a consensus - did your read the comments above? The only issue is how to handle it efficiently, especially when editors are proposing to give up because they think it's futile. Wikipedia is part of the real world. We are expected to do the right thing, not capitulate.Your understanding of BLP in general, and your attitude toward its enforcement is increasingly concerning.. Acroterion(talk)15:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I wasn't talking to you, I though we were in agreement! And as far as the morality of naming him is concerned, there's one thing I'd like to say. I don't know why I have to spell this out, but law enforcement was actively seeking the public's help is locating an individual in connection with an exceptionally heinous crime. The right thing to do is help them out, not surrender to fears on "innocent until proven guilty". To do otherwise is an act of abject moral cowardice. Esszet (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they’re only human, and sometimes they fuck up, but think of all of the times they didn’t. The potential benefits (i.e. helping bring a vicious criminal to justice) far outweigh the potential risks. Esszet (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
This is not the job of Wikipedia. We are here neither as a news organization nor as some sort of investigative body. There are other places that serve those functions (e.g., Wikinews). There can certainly be debate about where one draws the line, but while the police are in hot pursuit of a "person of interest" mere days after a crime, I don't think there is any good argument for inclusion. That said, happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
There is no policy-based argument framed around futility, or an assertion that we can't do better or don't need to. Getting it right most of the time, not ruining lives and reputations most of the time, in the name of an editor being first to post a name, is not enough. I really think you need to reconsider your understanding of what Wikipedia is here to do, and your approach to collaboration with other editors. And I'm not your buddy either. Acroterion(talk)22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
And we're in an excellent place to protect the innocent, by not amplifying misinformation or enshrining it in history. We have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to do so, Your casual approach to this concept is extremely concerning.,m I'm glad you've brought it to the attention of the community. Since you removed the CT notice on your talkpage, you are assumed to have read it and understood. Acroterion(talk)22:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The real problem here is that you think Wikipedia is way more important than it really is. This is not a news source. It is not CNN, Fox, MSNBC, ABC, the BBC, Le Monde, or anything like that. Our impact on breaking news is minuscule. We are not a shrine – we aren't even a reliable source! Richard Jewell - who was wrongfully accused - has not had his name wiped - he has his own article! If it's less noteworthy, you delete the name afterwards! Easy! A lot of people take Wikipedia way too seriously, and quite frankly, I'm beginning to wonder if I got really carried away here myself. What am I getting so pissed off about if we have virtually no impact on breaking news? It's better to try to assist in catching criminals than obsess over innocent until proven guilty, but as I said before, what happens here makes virtually no difference in the grand scheme of things. That's all I'll say for now. Esszet (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think we've amply established that Wikipedia is not what Esszet wants it to be, it's not a news aggregator or an Internet investigation agency, but per discussion below, there seems to be sentiment that in breaking events it has too closely approached that mode. Acroterion(talk)12:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it should depend on whether or not accused disputes the charges. You can say a person did something without calling them a criminal. For example, "Alice killed Bob" is not the same as "Alice murdered Bob." Whether or not a person is found guilty of murder does not change the fact that they killed — or didn't kill — someone. In many self-defense shooting cases, the question is not "whodunit," but whether or not the shooting was justified. I don't see an issue with naming someone if it's obvious that they are the perpetuator.
Similarly, if a person is convicted of something but maintains their innocence, then we should only mention the conviction without stating that they actually committed the crime. Ixfd64 (talk) 02:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Policy and notification discussion
I've started discussions with Fuzheado on ways to educate over-enthusiastic or incautious editors about these policies through templates and policy links - I have an overly long template draft at User:Acroterion/currentcrime (feel free to edit it) and Fuzheado has proposed WP:BLPPERP as a backup link to explain the specific protocols for fast-moving situations. At some point I think there should be a VPP discussion to formalize it (once it's not a redlink) and find a consensus version. This keeps happening, and admins shouldn't have to babysit articles every time, or at least shouldn't have to rehash policy every time. I went straight to a short term of ECP for the Lewiston article right away, since there were a lot of autoconfirmed editors piling on, I think that needs to be a default for emerging criminal events. Acroterion(talk)15:25, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I suppose it's asking too much. But I do not understand how the name of a suspect, much less a person of interest, is of any encyclopedic value prior to an arrest. I'm beginning to think that Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia but a news aggregator. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The NOTNEWS pendulum has swung too far into trying to cover the news too much, and there are several concurrent discussions related to how poor our "breaking news" articles come to look just a year or two later after the event, because editors are writing in proseline as the event breaks, not as a summary from the 10-year POV. (See for example any Timeline of COVID in <nation>/<state> article.) That editors feel compelled to push every detail of a breaking event, including names of non-notable people, needs to be brought back to a more sane approach. Masem (t) 00:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think this draft template is kinda a band-aid, in that it doesn't really help resolve or address the underlying problem. The issue as I see it is that we don't have a clear definition of what a public figure is, nor when someone becomes a public figure due to infamy. Until we can more clearly define that, and by extension more clearly define the lines of where WP:BLPCRIME ends, these sorts of edits and related discussions will continue. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:06, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree. My first instinct is that the draft template is too wordy. My question is whether we can place the warning on the edit page (rather than the main article). I have a feeling that more editors would see the warning on the edit page. - Enos733 (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
And I agree too. I think it would be better to draft the backup policy statement/extension, and then the template. A more concise template could coexist with the {{current}} template for events involving individuals like the Lewiston shootings. Since I'm on several deadlines in RL, I haven't tackled that. Acroterion(talk)12:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Name change request
Latest comment: 11 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I am working on a biography of a low-profile living academic. Article title is in the format John T. Academic, which is his commonly used name. One of the sources for an award stated his full name; this is on the website of a major internatonal organization. So, I changed his name to John Thomas Academic in the lede. The living person got very upset about this change and reverted my edit. In the meantme, another editor noted that the academic uses his full name on his cv, published on the university's webste in severa place. Because he is an academic, the cv is being used for his birth year (with his consent) and some work details. My general thought is that we should removed the middle name since he has a low profile, his middle name is not widely used (I can't find it outside of these two sources), and he as specificallye expressed a concern. While I don't understand wanting your full bith date being in Wikipedia but not your middle name, I do think the right to privacy applies. But before I take this to the four or five people working on this article, I wanted to see what thoughts were here. Rublamb (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
@Johnuniq, Thanks and sorry for asking in the wrong place. I had found those two pages, but they seem to focus on article names; in fact, the examples in WP:COMMONNAME support using the full name in the article text. To me, this is not so much about those guidelines, but rather how to correclty interpret BLP and privacy. Not trying to drag you into somethime specific; just though it would be helpful to bounce my thought process off of someone else who looks at BLP. Rublamb (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Special support for minorities / vulnerable who BLPdelete
Latest comment: 11 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion
I want to put an idea out which I think is already in practice, and which would be useful to have documented in a discussion.
We preferentially grant WP:BLPDELETE deletion to vulnerable populations much more readily than we do to individuals of majority or empowered demographics
I have no personal insight into this person's life, but because they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#C3 "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society", I am going to state my opinion that they are robust enough to tolerate being minimally used as an example in this discussion. Often when we get deletion requests, it is from individuals who seem a lot more vulnerable and unfortunate, and it is very difficult to ethically convene examination of such cases. I apologize for drawing a little more attention to this person, but we rarely get chances to showcase relatively protected individuals making these requests. I think the deletion discussion we have here is typical: the request comes, the subject passes N, we have to make a decision, we have no info about why they wanted deletion, but I think we can bring in societal context to guess why they would make such a request. My wish is for development of a general rule and not examination of anything specific to this individual.
Here is the general situation: women and minorities ask for deletion a lot more than men and majority demographics. It also happens that some groups, including women and LGBT+ people, get a lot more online harassment than other demographics. I am going to guess some numbers because I know of no easy way to get data, but I guess that BLPDELETE requests come from women about 100 times more than men. I also guess that women and demographics like LGBT+ people get online harassment 100 times more than men and non-LGBT+ people.
I propose for consideration a guideline for BLPDELETE: the Wikimedia community lets it be known among ourselves that we preferentially grant deletion to vulnerable populations much more readily than we do to individuals of majority or empowered demographics. I think we already do this, but it is not discussed. A major reason for not doing this is that it is a kind of discrimination. Reasons for doing this is that it is a kind of social equity to minimize the disparate impact which harassment has on some demographics and not others.
The change that I am proposing is that individuals be able to use identity demographics as part of a rationale in requesting WP:BLPDELETE. The current practice - I believe - is that people silently recognize unspoken clues that someone is vulnerable to online harassment due to their identity, then coordinate based on silent in-group mutual understanding of the situation.
If we have a problem with BLPs being used for the purposes of online harassment, we ought to be looking for means to tackle that. For all biographical subjects, not just those we decide to describe as 'vulnerable' - that isn't a determination we ought to be making, and I suspect that many subjects included in the groups suggested above might find it objectionable. This first, and most obvious fix, would be to make Wikipedia:Pending changes the default for all biographies of living persons. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: The deletion in this case was of a well-developed biography with 30+ citations, made by a very experienced Wikipedia editor who has a reputation for producing some of our best content. There was no history of misconduct or vandalism in the Wikipedia article. Nothing done to the article would have triggered a pending changes concern. This BLPDELETE request, which I am saying is like many BLPDELETE requests, was for a reason off the Wikimedia platform and unknown to the wiki reviewers. Bluerasberry (talk)19:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
If there was 'no history of misconduct or vandalism in the Wikipedia article' and the reason for the deletion request 'unknown', why is the biography you chose as an example even relevant? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Neither do I. Not least because there seems to have been any minority group discussed (women aren't a minority). The subject of the biography asked that it be deleted. No specific reason was given. The biography was deleted. Bluerasberry's assumption that this was anything to do with vulnerability seems to be pure supposition. Making changes in policy as the result of one specific case is rarely advisable, and doing so on the basis of nothing but suppositions about said case would be even more so. There are clearly serious problems with Wikipedia's biographical coverage, but creating policies which would have the direct consequence of reinforcing systematic bias in coverage isn't the way to deal with them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
My claim is that women and non-white people request deletion of Wikipedia biographies about themselves 100 times more than white men. Debatable points are whether 1) this would be a problem if accurate and 2) if it would be a problem, is that claim plausible enough to justify investing the resources to run the analysis which would back it with evidence.
I hear you both: nothing explicit in this or any other individual deletion request is evidence that minority vulnerability was a factor in deletion. However, I would not expect to see that evidence, because it would be taboo for anyone to request that demographic-based discrimination give a favorable outcome to one group but not others. I do not need any action or anyone to agree with me, because if this were a problem, then any response has to come with the consent of a stakeholder group, and no such group has ever mentioned wanting to address this. I just wanted to say the thing publicly, because I have this idea that there is this trend which seems like a signal indicating a problem, but we have not yet established the common knowledge that everyone knows, that everyone else knows, that this is happening. Bluerasberry (talk)15:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, if it's taboo for someone to request that we consider race or gender in our policy decisions, why amend the policy to explicitly include race and gender as considerations for policy decisions? It makes us sound vaguely racist/sexist, and the benefit doesn't really seem clear to me. jp×g🗯️23:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
"I am no longer a member of the Church of Skub" etc
Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is not a specific ongoing issue about this, but something I've witnessed a few times is the following sequence of events:
BLP expresses their opinion on something -- let's say they are pro-skub.
This is mentioned in news coverage of them at the time.
Some years later, they no longer hold this opinion, or support the thing, or oppose the thing or whatever. They are now anti-skub (sometimes aggressively so).
They say this on Twitter, or on their blog, etc.
But we don't include this in the article, because of one of the following:
It's just a blog/tweet/single comment, so it isn't reliably sourced (even if the news article saying they were pro-skub was also just referencing their own tweets/blog posts/offhand comments/etc).
It's WP:UNDUE, since there wasn't a new news article about them having changed their mind (why would there be?)
We need to punish them for their pro-skub views (gross)
I don't think these reasons are very convincing. First of all, things change over time. For example, if someone is on the record as an proudly outspoken member of Our Lady of Skub Parish in 2019, and in 2021 it's revealed that the pastor has been secretly having affairs with all the parishioners' pets, newspapers are not going to publish individual articles listing off every person who leaves the church. A tweet saying "As of today I'm no longer a member of @OLSkub" is probably all we're going to get.
There was a particularly stupid instance of this a while ago when somebody got divorced, and their article kept saying they were married for years, because them saying they were divorced wasn't a reliable source: this accomplished nothing and led to a very asinine and obtuse situation (https://slate.com/culture/2022/12/emily-st-john-mandel-divorced-wikipedia.html) when it would have been perfectly possible to just cite a tweet and get on with our lives.
Another example -- if someone is a representative (SKUB-Indiana) in 2016, but doesn't seek reelection and instead takes up gardening, it's unlikely that newspapers are going to be interviewing them about their political views. A blog post about "Why I think the Skub Party has gone to shit" might be all we have to go on. Indeed, it's pretty rare for it to be newsworthy when some random retired person changes their mind about politics. This is even moreso the case for pundits and social media influencers, who often have a few years of fame and stop getting written about when they stop being viral superstars. So, too, do such people often come to find the public eye tiring and start avoiding the limelight. It seems somewhat perverse to insist that someone's part of a thing they have abandoned specifically because they found it unpleasant and distasteful and decided to get out even if it meant not being famous anymore.
I think that the newsworthiness problem is especially bad for people who support controversial opinions or movements, because of the dog-bites-man thing: it's news when somebody says they support having sex with pigeons. It's not news (and hence won't be reported on) when somebody doesn't, because most people don't. This more or less guarantees that, if all we go by is news coverage, there will be a predictable bias towards people believing/supporting dumb and outrageous stuff, and against people repudiating dumb and outrageous stuff.
WP:NOTMANDY is a nice essay that goes into a little bit more depth on the basic principle of why it's good and necessary for people to have right of reply, so I won't reiterate everything it says here. Anyway, what this all adds up to is that I think we should say something to this effect in the policy. I don't think it needs to be extremely long, it could just be a sentence or so: BLPs are allowed to contain updates or denials or whatever on a person's beliefs and religion and philosophy and politics et cetera, regardless of newsworthiness or whether it's being self-published or whatever. jp×g🗯️01:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
There is, however, also another dimension to this problem. Someone posts a tweet in 2020 disavowing their previously held pro-Skub views. However, it was also found that in 2021 the person posted several tweets with views on Foo which aligned with the pro-Skub camp, and in 2022 he was invited to speak at an event with pro-Skub funding, etc. etc. but there has been no actual RS stating that he remains pro-Skub (because again, why would there be?). We are then left with three options:
Include the disavowing of pro-Skub views, but not the rest. This is probably a violation of WP:DUE, and is one of the rare cases where WP:MANDY actually makes sense.
Include the disavowing of pro-Skub views, and also the various indicators that he may still be pro-Skub. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and moreover indicates not the disputing of the article subject's claim by RS, but by editors.
Include nothing, with the same issues as noted above.
We have a similar kind of issue with political parties, where either 1. politicians in that party, elected representatives of that party, and policies pushed by the party have all been described as pro-Skub, but no RS has gotten around to describing the party itself as pro-Skub so it stays out of the infobox and lede; or 2. every single RS describes the party's position differently which is why you end up with the "pro-Skub" vs "extremist Skub" RfCs.
Small but significant change in BDP wording from about 2 years ago
Latest comment: 10 months ago21 comments10 people in discussion
This edit in April 2021 was done by @Octoberwoodland:, in what appears to be response to this archived ANI discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1063#Repeated BLPNAME violations re:April 2021 United States Capitol attack, without any type of further discussion on the wording change. It may seem insignificant as of what little was changed, but this has just come up at ITN regarding Kissinger's death, and now that I see the change, it definitely alters how I remember BDP had been handled - in that, how I recall and confirmed by the diff above, we assume by default a period of time that we treat articles about recently deceased as if they were living for around six months or so, regardless of the type of content; now, its being argued that unless the material is controversial and that there is consensus to extend it out, that articles on recently deceased don't need to meet BLP standards. This change as best as I can tell had no basis beyond the editor's whim given they may have been losing the ANI argument, went unnoticed until December 2021 Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48#Is WP:BLP applicable to recently dead people? Not clear, and in reading that, it seems clear in hindsight that editors discussing that were thinking BDP meant what I thought it was (BLP automatically should be considered extended to them), and no one looked back to see what had changed.
Nothing happened with that discussion, but because of what I've encountered at ITN and digging up what had changed, I would suggest we revert back the diff that was made or have a discussion of better wording, because the way the current wording is, it seems like fair game to start mudslinging against a recently deceased person (as long as it doesn't involve their friends or family) once their body is cold (Further, this raises how 3RR exemptions would then apply to articles of the recently deceased) And/or we figure out what the consensus is for how we handle articles of recently deceased relative to BLP. Masem (t) 05:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Disagree with this major policy change. With all due respect to WP:SILENCE, this should be reverted. This is not the straight-forward common sense changes where SILENCE might have weight. We went from years of recent deaths being covered under the umbrealla of WP:BLP, which states Wikipedia must get the article right. Now we need to establish consensus extend the policy, starting immediately after the death? No.—Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
It's been almost two years; on an obscure guideline I would agree that the new version is not the status quo, but for a major policy page with 1700 watchers and almost 700,000 views since the change it clearly is.
I also generally agree with the change; the former guidance was unclear about when the extension applied and for how long and this addresses that. Further, the protections of BLP are exceptional restrictions there to protect the living; once dead they are only relevant in exceptional circumstances. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.
Given this wording, a celebrity who is rumored to have died at the hands of a jilted lover from an extramarital affair can easily have content added without quality sourcing from multiple sources, merely because "editorial consensus" is needed to enforce caution. That "consensus" can take days or weeks in an RfC to form. Before, consensus was needed to IAR override BLP being applicable. The bar has been substantially lowered, and the burden removed to justify keeping salacious material around a recent death. —Bagumba (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Before, consensus was needed to IAR override BLP being applicable. Not necessarily; it said the policy can extend for an indeterminate period, emphasis mine.
I'm also not convinced by your example, as I can think of many circumstances where inclusion of the information would still be forbidden under BLP, others where inclusion would be forbidden under other policies, and yet others where even if BLP still applied it would be appropriate to include or at least consider including the information. I think we need a real example of edits that would and should have been prevented. BilledMammal (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
My recollection of how BDP has been used in practice since its introduction and/or since I've been editing is that this extension is automatically applied, but for how long it should run is based on editor consensus, for the main purpose of not allowing mud to be thrown around as soon as the death is confirmed. The wording change now suddenly makes BDP seem to only apply in exceptional cases, rather than an automatic feature. Masem (t) 13:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem that came up at ITN with Kissinger is that when their death was nominated, the article had about 10 CNs and a few unsourced paragraphs (these have since been fixed). While none of the statements could be considered necessarily controversial, having CNs and unsourced paragraphs on a B*L*P would be a major flag for such articles. Thus, by the way BDP used to read, those CNs and unsourced paragraphs would need to be resolved to demonstrate the expected quality for a recently-deceased person. However, because of this change in this policy, some were arguing that the only time that the highest quality issues that would apply normally to BLP for the recently deceased is if there was consensus to extend the time out and only if the material in question was controversial about the person's friends and family.
That confused me (since I had long been using the pre-2021 version of BDP) and led to see that this change was more significant than just that. Masem (t) 13:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
A bold change to a major policy, that says Wikipedia must get the article right in the second paragraph is not a good thing. The most recent time it came up for an article I've edited was the 2023 Nashville school shooting, where an RfC was held to determine whether BDP applied. While there was a pretty strong overwhelming consensus that it applied, it seems strange in retrospect that such an RfC was necessary given the circumstances.
I would suggest reverting this addition to the 2021 version of the policy. BDP should be automatic, with the only discussion being on how long a period it should apply. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Support original wording. In practice, the old BDP wording is often applied.
I think an RfC should be held, however, to see whether the WP:SILENCE argument is true or specious. Either way, this is one of the most important PAGs and not discussing changes is what caused this issue in the first place. An RfC would allow a greater portion of the enwiki community to comment and prevent a similar issue in 3 years where someone questions tbe restoration because only a few people commented here. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but it's been in the policy for well over 2.5 years and it's clearly a major topic. I'd suggest starting a formal RfC. Ed[talk][OMT]20:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Agree to revert to the 2021 version. It is sensible to extend WP:BLP extension for a recent death, to prevent knee-jerk mud slinging if nothing else. As this was the previous status quo, revert then discuss if users want to change the wording it can be agreed upon formally. Polyamorph (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd also support reverting because not having some kind of automatic protection is a pretty big change and that should have been discussed - even if the previous wording is unclear on how long the indeterminate period is. Galobtter (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.
I'm not seeing any evidence, either before or now, that the 2021 change reflects any common practice, as opposed to the whim of a few editors. Coupled with BDP also being a policy, WP:SILENCE—the weakest form of consensus—should not allow this version to become the status quo. Revert it. No issue if a formal RfC decides on a more lenient version.—Bagumba (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
For the same reasons as others above, I also agree that the change should be reverted, and I agree with -sche's earlier suggestion of automatic 6 months extendable by consensus. Generally, I find unadvertised major changes to policies pernicious. There was a time when I watchlisted all the core policies and camped them to make sure major changes weren't being made without consensus, but frankly I don't want to dedicate my life to that and neither does anyone else, and the cost of that is that major changes are made that no one notices for years. I'd almost be in favor of "core policies should be indef full protected." Levivich (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside".
I think the real problem is Wikipedia itself declaring people dead. I thoese situations, I understand this policy of 115 years. However, it seems to me that by writing about someone in the past tense who has officially been presumed dead by the juristiction within they resided is merely propagating what is the most widely held view is according to reliable sources. I therefore think we should add that if a person has been declared dead in absentia, we should write about them as if they were dead. To my understanding, not having this exception makes the current page about Richey Edwards in breach with the policy.--Marginataen (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
So in the case of Edwards, the last sentence of the Disappearance and presumed death section states that Edwards was declared presumed dead in November 2008. That declaration was made through a court order by Edwards' parents, following the normal process for declaration of presumed death within UK law. In that circumstance, referring to Edwards in the past tense is supported by the sources about him.
Just to make it clear, Wikipedia is not declaring Edwards dead, reliable sources and the UK court system are. Until the point at which he was declared presumed dead, the article used the present tense when referring to him. The change over to the past tense happened on 23 November 2008, after the news broke. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, @Sideswipe9th. I think that is how it should be. I just can't see anything in the policy about it being OK to write about a person in the past tense before 115 years have passed. I am suggesting to make it a part of a policy to use past tense when the individual in question is declared legally dead. In the day, he just follow what is the established view (that X is dead). Marginataen (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Using primary sources for quotes that could potentially harm the reputation of the person being quoted
Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments10 people in discussion
This has come up a few times, so I thought I'd bring it up here, since WP:BLP does not specifically address it that I can see. I feel that it is generally a BLP violation to use a primary source for a quote that could reasonably be interpreted as harmful to the speaker's reputation - eg. going through someone's writings and finding a quote where they say "yes, I love fascism and hate babies!" and then adding it to their Wikipedia article, cited solely to a primary source where they wrote it, generally isn't appropriate. Similarly, going through someone's Twitter account to find tweets that make them look bad and then using Wikipedia to publicize them (citing them as a primary source) is clearly unacceptable. Quotes that are clearly harmful to the reputation of the person speaking or writing them should always require a secondary source. Should a sentence to this effect be added to WP:PRIMARY or WP:BLPSPS? Something like Quotes that are likely to harm to the author's reputation should never be cited to primary sources, only to secondary ones or something of that nature. --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Support, this should tried to be work into the existing aspect around "should not be unduly self-serving" since that's the same problem in the opposite direction. Masem (t) 13:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Support Many people who are prolific social media users say provocative or satirical or "joking" things to get attention online, and Wikipedia editors should not go cherry picking in a search for negativity. If reliable secondary sources take note, that is another matter. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment. I think we should distinguish between different forms of self-publication. There's a scale of weight between, say, a published monograph with a major university press/a peer-reviewed research paper in an academic journal --> an authored opinion piece in a reputable newspaper --> an interview in a reputable newspaper --> a throwaway (possibly joking) comment in an interview or on social media --> an overheard comment that wasn't intended for publication. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I support this in principle. I agree with Masem that it would be good to tie this in with existing guidance on the opposite problem. I think the word "solely" needs to be in the guidance somewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with this, though as above, with caveats both that if the speaker clearly intended to widely publish the material, such as in a book, that can change the calculations, and if reliable sources have taken extensive notice of the quote and any reactions to it, then the quote should be provided to give context to any discussion in the article about that. But if there isn't some substantive analysis by reliable sources, there's a substantial risk of something being taken out of context, a joke or sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek remark being presented as though the speaker actually meant it, and various problems like that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Support. Sometimes people become famous or infamous for saying stupid things, but if so we should be able to find reliable secondary sourcing for it. We shouldn't be in the business of attacking people by mining their quotes and trying to make them become famous for saying something when they aren't already famous for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
So...
I've got some reservations about this, mostly around WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Imagine that a politician says something potentially career-ending. It's all over the news. But... the television show where the comment was made live? Primary source. The breaking news report that appeared in your news feed minutes later? Primary source. The newspaper article the next morning, that says "Paul Politician said <something shocking>. This reported asked several people downtown about it, and they all said they were shocked"? Primary source.
(The problem of satirical or "joking" things could probably be handled as an example of quoting out of context.)
I also notice that there are no examples given either of inappropriate behavior in articles or of disputes that couldn't be resolved without adding yet another rule to the policy. Could this be a WP:CREEPY proposal that, although obviously motivated from a morally and encyclopedically sound place, isn't strictly necessary? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment: If the intent is to use a quote out of context to make a person look bad, then there is a lack of neutrality which is covered elsewhere. If this is about the reliability of social media as a source, that is also addressed elsewhere. I have reservations about using the word "never" in a guideline like this without more details about circumstances and types of sources. This is a bad example because it is clearly discussed in secondary sources, but consider that Hitler expressed his opinions of Jews in Mein Kampf. Whether a historical publication or a book published today, I don't think we would want a policy that says we can't quote from Mein Kampf because it would make Hitler look bad. As long as the quote is not accompanied by interpretation (original research), editors should be able to quote from primary sources as appropriate. (Recognizing that MOS suggests paraphrasing instead). In short, I don't want to start debating whether something makes a person "look bad" or is a usable fact. Rather, I think we can rely on UNDO to guide us through whether a fact is encyclopedic and important to the subject. Rublamb (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Footnote to BLPSELFPUB point 2
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Point 2 to WP:BLPSELFPUB currently reads: it does not involve claims about third parties[d]. Footnote d reads For allegations of crime or misconduct that involve multiple parties, or the conduct of one party towards another, a denial would not constitute a "claim about third parties". If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
I think the final sentence of the footnote should be trimmed to just: If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, i.e. removing , and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia..
The reason for this is that this is completely redundant to the rest of the criteria in cases where self-published sources are the only place these claims are made, but is irrelevant and potentially incorrect where those same claims are reported in third-party sources (the inclusion or exclusion of which are dealt with by other policies). As an example of where this matters, consider a situation where living person A accuses living person B of a crime, person B denies this and makes counter-claims against person A. If a reliable source reports both sets of claims, but we only have a self-published source for the (detail of the) denial by person B then the denial is covered by BLPSELFPUB but that denial being self-published is irrelevant to whether the claims against a third party merit inclusion, and this policy should not speak to whether they are or are not. Slightly separately in some cases it might be appropriate for a self-published source to be used to verify that claims against a third party were made as part of a denial (but obviously not details of what those claims are). Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
BLP/V/OR dispute about pronunciation keys in lead sentences
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 9 months ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Relevant context: an edit I submitted to the Louis Rossman article was reverted. I could not find any secondary sources that contained any relevant information, and the 3rd party (the NY State Department of Taxation and Finance) claims were supported with documents sent by and recordings of converstaions with various NY State-affiliated entities. These documents and recordings were released by Louis Rossman but are not available directly from NY State. Louis Rossman's struggles with NY State are arguably an important part of his history, and the article is incomplete without that information:
I suggest that the following rule:
it does not involve claims about third parties;
have the following footnote added:
The release of documents written by or written to a third party does not constitute a claim about a third party.
Additionally, I would like the following rule removed:
the article is not based primarily on such sources.
If the source meets all of the other quality standards (including, importantly, the 'there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity' rule), then this rule adds nothing and reduces the amount of content that can be included in Wikipedia. Pandapip1 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Reading the edit summary of the edit that reverted your addition, I see no mention of BLPSELFPUB. I do however see a mention of WP:UNDUE, and yeah that content would be undue as primary sources do not contribute towards due weight. In my opinion, changing BLPSELFPUB would not have prevented the content you added from being reverted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. I'm relatively new.
It appears that you're right about WP:UNDUE being the reason for the revert (although I will be disputing that, since there is no published alternate viewpoint). However, my edit, it appears, would also violate BLPSELFPUB as it currently stands.
I don't care about reinstating the edit nearly as much as improving this rule, since it currently seems extraordinarily flawed. Let's pretend that my edit was also reverted for BLPSELFPUB. What do you think of my suggested changes to the rule? Pandapip1 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea. The footnote would not cover common situations where an article subject self-publishes a press release alleging another article subject wronged them in some manner. It doesn't matter if that second article subject is another individual person, or an organisation or some other body, it is still a claim about a third party. It certainly would not assist with the content you tried to add to Rossman's article, because Rossman was making claims about a third party (in this case, the New York state government) made in relation to his own business and non-profit organisation.
As for the removal, again this is a bad idea. We already have an issue with overly promotional articles on individuals, where the promotional nature is often solely sourced to self-published sources. The current rule allows for us to clean up those articles, and keep them where reliable, independent, secondary sources about that person exist, or delete them where they don't because they are not notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
What about my footnote wouldn't cover my edit? NY State sent documents showing that they dropped both fines. I expressed Louis Rossman's view by stating his opinions and included factual information that NY State sent.
I agree that the footnote could use additional expansion. But as someone unfamilliar with the process, I would assume that larger changes are harder to make, and didn't want to propose sweeping changes that would take ages to implement. Would you recommend I expand the footnote?
Overly promotional articles can be fixed / removed using other existing rules, such as the notability rule and the 'there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity' rule. Is the ability to fast-track article removals for overly promotional articles a reasonable by disallowing a significant amount of legitimate content really a good tradeoff? I'd say no; if you disagree, I'd like to know why. Pandapip1 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
You're not going to have a lot of success changing this policy because your edit was (correctly) reverted on other grounds. You're trying to fix a problem that isn't actually a problem as far as the rest of the Wikipedia community sees it. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
It would not be feasible to remove "the article is not based primarily on such sources" without also doing an RfC or similar consensus discussion at WP:V also, since it's part of the version in V as well. I.e., this would be a substantive change to two policies at once (plus a guideline, RS). See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF for ongoing efforts to merge all three of these into a single policy location in V. Also, any proposals for substantive changes like the above "release of documents" stuff should be postponed until after that merge is complete, or it will simply cloud the proceeding and impede getting consensus on anything at all. (Yes, I know it was posted before that; I mean to head off more such proposed changes to this section in the interim.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
No, both of these are bad suggestions. Clearly documents written by or to a third party can have implications for third parties (consider eg. if the head of the KKK wrote a letter to a political candidate endorsing them; any reference at all to that letter would require a secondary source.) And the second suggestion is totally unworkable - there are very, very good reasons why we don't want an article to rely entirely on such sources. Articles are required to be based primarily on WP:INDEPENDENT sources, for one, and a BLPSELFPUB source is never independent. The severity of that lack of independence, coupled with the high risk of people trying to improperly write articles based primarily on BLPSELFPUB sources for obscure figures who have few other sources available, is more than enough reason to make that restriction particularly severe in this context and spell it out explicitly, but it's ultimately a stronger version of policy that applies everywhere (ie. it would be inappropriate to base an article heavily on sources that aren't independent from the subject even if the sources are RSes and not just usable under BLPSELFPUB.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Clarification on 'third-party sources'
Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments4 people in discussion
"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
What's a 'third-party source' here on Wikipedia? If someone could give a couple of examples that would clear things up.
Third-party would be a source that is not the person themselves or something very closely related to them (for example, their spouse or their agent). Ideally that third-party should be a recognized reliable sources. Masem (t) 18:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I would be sensible here to just elminate any doubt and use our consistent wording of independent sources including with the link to what that means. Or at very least link the "third-party sources" wording to the same page. Any time we are using WP-internal jargon with a particular WP:P&G meaning behind it, we should use it consistently to avoid confusion (and wikilawyering). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 01:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I've added the link (twice, because editors often click through to a specific section). However, you should not be completely surprised if an editor wanders along later and removes it because it's "just an essay". We have a couple (as in "about two") editors who believe that policies should only like to other policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Feedback on no-indexing marginal BLPs
Latest comment: 9 months ago16 comments7 people in discussion
I’ve raised this before at the Village Pump but it got no significant comments either way, perhaps because it’s a lot to unpack. That said, I thought I’d broach the subject here to see if there is any sense of whether it would be worthwhile to begin the process of exploring the contours of such a proposal, or if anyone is interested in engaging in a detailed discussion on this.
Specifically, I’m interested in exploring a proposal to allow the subjects of BLPs -- with objective exceptions (i.e., current elected officeholders, FA-class BLPs, BLPs on the Most Popular list, etc.) -- to request courtesy no-indexing. The subject of a marginal BLP, in other words, could email info-en-q@, and the no-index tag would be applied to the article (sans the 90-day expiry). The advantages to this, I believe, are:
It would create a calmer and more collegial editing atmosphere. In closing RfCs, I notice, in many cases, disputes at BLPs arise over some group of editors wanting to push the most salacious content about an individual into the lead, knowing it will be pulled for Knowledge Graph snippets, Siri responses, etc. This would remove that as an incentive.
It would be consistent with the WMF’s privacy resolution.
This would not prevent anyone from accessing a WP BLP, they would just (in some cases) need to come to WP and look it up instead of us shoving it in their face.
I'm not presenting this as an RfC at this time as I'd prefer to get some feedback about whether this is even in the galaxy of possibilities at this point. Chetsford (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Even as a formerly professional privacy activist, I'm having a hard time seeing a point to this. Anyone notable enough to have their own article here is already enough of a public figure that what we might have to say about them is already public knowledge in other sources (or we couldn't be saying it anyway per the BLP policy). This isn't really a privacy question at all, but a matter of negative or otherwise unwanted publicity, which is quite a different thing. What I think would probably happen is that unmistakably notable people who are caught up in widely-reported scandals, criminal charges, etc. (but who are not "current elected officeholders" – which wouldn't even include Donald Trump, BTW – or whatever artificial line you'd want to draw), would avail themselves of this process for whitewashing purposes. I can even imagine who would be first in line to do it, such as a certain Indian guru who has absconded to somewhere in South America, ducking charges brought in India and France, and who has a legion of followers always trying to whitewash his article here, especially since our article on him has top placement on Google. This would immediately be abused as simply a tool for promotion-by-supression-of-unflattering-coverage. "FA-class BLPs" isn't a sensible criterion; how well a couple of editors have researched and written an article about which they individually care very intently has nothing at all to do with the public notoriety level of a figure. I don't see "Most Popular" list as being relevant, either. Some "15 minutes of fame" person might hit that list for a while due to Internet memes or something, but be far less of a public figure a year later. On the other hand, no-indexing that was requested internally by editors, not by the subject or representatives thereof, might be something to consider in cases of weakly sourced stubs. Then again, if the quality is iffy enough to warrant no-indexing, then it's probably iffy enough to warrant deletion. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, SMcCandlish. That makes sense and I appreciate the feedback. I could see extending it to exclude "current and former elected officials" or even persons convicted of heinous crimes - I don't actually have any specific criteria in mind and if there's any sense this might be supported I imagine those would have to be identified through some laborious process. My bigger concern is persons who qualify for BLPs under our, frankly, sweeping subject-specific notability guidelines. For instance, an otherwise private person who has become the editor-in-chief of a Q1 journal can be punished under WP:NACADEMIC criterion 8 with a permanent WP article that becomes the single most enduringly accessible record of their life but may be cobbled together from a bunch of random snippets of text that may not represent a very holistic view. To try to rectify the situation, their only real option is spending the next six months trying to familiarize themselves with our frequently inscrutable guidelines. I feel in those cases, little would be lost in the grand scheme of things if their BLP were just no-indexed; still accessible, just not pushed to the number one search result. Anyway, that was longer than I intended it to be! Thanks again for the feedback.Chetsford (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
On the flip side, a legion of editors effectively pushing harmful content into a BLP could effectively encourage a subject to request no-index protection, and then deprive the BLP subject of indexing, simply because other editors have not rallied to protect the BLP subject through the usual processes. This could be a double-win for a group of editors that not only seek to add harmful content but also suppress, for example, the visibility of an academic BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
If the article were so problematic as to be seen as "punishment" by the subject (presumably not one who is party to some kind of publicly-reported controversy), then why would it not be problematic enough for AfD or some other already-extant action (draftifying, WP:TNT, merge just basic bio details to a section at the journal article and redirect there, etc.)? There's an element of "hard cases make bad law" here: there might be edge cases where we decided it was undesirable for a particular page about a particular subject to be indexed by search engines, for some unusual reason (probably a WP:BLP1E thing, though again a good reason to merge-basics-and-redirect to the event), but setting up an "appeals system" though which the subject could seek no-indexing would open a floodgate of suppression attempts by everyone and their dog. And it wouldn't just be a bunch of wikilawyering but probably actual lawyer lawyering; if WP had a formal mechanism by which to do something like this, then various parties would employ attorneys to try to have courts of various jurisdictions force WP to invoke it for that party in particular. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@Chetsford, I've never heard of any academic wishing that there was no Wikipedia article about them. I've heard of some who wish that it said different things (e.g., that it omitted unpleasant facts), but never one who wished to have a basic or positive article deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, no articles would be deleted in this proposal. They'd merely have the no-index tag applied. However, that may be the case that no academic wanted an article no-indexed, in which case I don't think we'd lose much with this policy. (Speaking only for myself, I would be absolutely horrified if I were to qualify for a WP article.) Chetsford (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm totally with you on that: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. But search engines are a huge part of our traffic, so hiding it from search engines is not necessarily much different from outright deletion from the POV of the readers. If you look at Donna Strickland (one of the Nobel Prize winners for whom we didn't have a visible article when the prize was announced), about two-thirds of the traffic is likely coming from web search engines. Noindex would make that as invisible to web searchers as deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. I think I'd be okay with that, though, however I know some would disagree. I'm partly inspired to make this proposal today due to a sense of guilt looking over some of the S-SNG articles I've created. For instance, this poor lady — Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier — maybe she's fine with it, maybe she's not, who knows? But we've removed any choice in the matter from her merely because she's a Fellow of the SPM and received a "major" award that maybe 1,000 people in the U.S. have ever heard of. She's not a criminal or a candidate, the public has no abiding need to have a look at her life forever beyond what she chooses to put in her autobiography on the Ohio State University website. But they get it anyway. Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
My opinion on this proposed process: I could accept it as a replacement to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, in which we hide articles whose subject has requested deletion, in cases where there was neither consensus for notability (despite the request) nor for non-notability. I don't think we should implement it any more broadly than that, because in many ways noindexing is tantamount to deletion. However, I don't think the subjects of BLPREQUESTDELETEs are likely to be happy with noindexing as a substitute for deletion. @WhatamIdoing:, there have been multiple cases of BLPREQUESTDELETE on seemingly innocuous academic biographies. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
David Eppstein - I think you're correct, that BLPREQUESTDELETE subjects would feel this is an inferior solution to full deletion. What if it didn't exist as an automatic process but required the same consensus as AFD? In other words, a BLP who was otherwise not successful at BLPREQUESTDELETE could request a BLPREQUESTNOINDEX under slightly less onerous standards? I could imagine a two-part standard: (a) a non-public figure, (b) of no significant public interest (easily demonstrable by the traffic logs or the relative recency of RS). Whereas, BLPREQUESTDELETE requires the BLP on a non-public figure to actually fail one of our guidelines in some way, BLPREQUESTNOINDEX would allow an otherwise acceptable article to be no-indexed based on the community's subjective consensus that no benefit exists to having it indexed. In the aforementioned example of Box-Steffensmeier, the article would never meet the requirements of BLPREQUESTDELETE but it may meet a no public interest standard (it gets an average of two views daily and hasn't been the subject of newsreporting in years). Similarly, articles could be re-indexed if circumstances changed. Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I am opposed to "slightly less onerous standards". We already have a problem with being unable to cover people who otherwise meet our notability standards (maybe not quite as blatantly as Box-Steffensmeier) and have their articles deleted for no reason other than that they asked for it. We also have an occasional problem where someone is more famous than that for something bad and requests their article deleted because they want their wrongdoing covered up. Let's not make both of these problems worse and in the process introduce yet more bureaucracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
High quality cartoon, but clearly a caricature. Since the subject is a comedienne, that may be acceptable in this case, but I can definitely see subjects that lack a sense of humor and would not like to be caricatured in this way.
High quality cartoon, but clearly a caricature. Since the subject is an activist, notable for being beaten and having her son be murdered, I think it is not appropriate for us to use a non notable caricature to illustrate her article; not funny.
Not a professional quality work. If the subject article were a BLP, I'd remove it immediately. Since it's not ... I'd still advise against using it there.
Not a professional quality work, and the article is a BLP. I'd be against using it there without explicit consent from the subject (and if we can converse with the subject, why not just ask her to release a photograph?)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Redirects involving BLP privacy issues. user:A smart kittenmeow 21:06, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
