Talk:Biographies of living people

Scope

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

All Wikimedia projects souns global and funny. Source hosts alot of old books with biographies, which do not cover criticism and praise in a balanced and neutral manner. Syrcro 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And neutral point of view is more of a Wikipedia/Wikinews thing. And maybe Wikibooks. We have no such policy on Commons. Wikisource and Wikiquote obviously don't adhere to it either. It's not really relevant to Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Meta, or the rest. Rocket000 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've limited the scope to Wikibooks, Wikinews, and Wikipedia. I've also refactored and tweaked the page a bit. --MZMcBride 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "old books with biographies" would fall under this; presumably, all books old enough to be here don't involve living people. That said, there is a use in not applying the policy to commons and wikisource, since there are valid images and source documents that, in themselves, may violate BLP, but on Wikipedia would be given the proper context and explanation to diffuse that. I guess. --Golbez 05:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This should not be applied to Wikinews either. There is too much scope for it to be abused as a way of suppressing news. The project quite deliberately does not have a BLP policy. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Brianmc (talk · contribs) here. Wikinews should be responsible for its own related policies, locally at the project-level. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

While the ideal of having a common policy for this seems like a good idea, perhaps every project would be better off being responsible at the local project-level? --darklama 08:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree here with this comment by Darklama (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 08:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I disagree with this global policy. Each project should have its own guidelines and policies for this sort of thing suited to its scope and needs. While it is always important to maintain NPOV, a BLP policy like this could easily be abused to suppress news. Tempodivalse [☎] 18:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Each project is free to have its own policies and guidelines, but what is the issue with a global policy? A document that encompasses the fundamentals.

Regarding Wikinews, of course news stories should treat subjects fairly. I can't think of a place where a policy of this type is more necessary. --MZMcBride 17:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: "cover criticism and praise in a balanced and neutral manner" - this seems as it would hamper Wikinews a bit much. What does this mean? All articles ever having to do with people that are currently alive, criminals, serial killers, etc., must devote equal amounts of text to praising them, as to criticizing them? Again, it is preferable for projects (and especially with Wikinews, I can't speak to Wikibooks) to determine these issues locally, at the project-level. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Cirt. The policy would force Wikinews (and other projects) to praise people as much we criticise them? For certain persons this would be difficult or even silly (murderers, criminals etc.). Also, what about interviews with subjects? Do they have to be neutral? Wikinews frequently interviews people who hold radical beliefs. This policy would severely hamper us with interviewing. imho BLP issues should be dealt with on each individual project, according to its scope. Tempodivalse [☎] 21:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Local projects are encouraged to create their own similar policies. However, I'm not sure what harm you see in creating a guideline for all the projects. We do this in other areas. I think the issues surrounding living people are great enough that it warrants a bit of extra documentation, so to speak. Does that sound reasonable? --MZMcBride 22:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What is reasonable is to allow Wikinews to continue to develop and enforce its own policies and processes locally, and not impose them from on high. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikinewsies are strongly encouraged to participate in discussions like this (and I'd be curious if we have people outside the English projects who can weigh in). That's the reason we have Meta. But at the end of the day, Wikinews is a member of the global Wikimedia community. --MZMcBride 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Wikiversity? Should this proposal also cover Wikiversity? What about being verifiable? Should biographies of living people at all times be verifiable even if the facts aren't necessarily neutral? Should verifiability apply to all projects even if a project does not follow the principals of NPOV or does not do so all the time? Perhaps an exception should be made for previously published works to cover Wikisource, or perhaps the proposal could be worded in such a way that Wikisource could be covered without violating it. If I understand correctly, Wikisource is suppose to only host previously published works, so if Wikisource is hosting biographies of people still living any information in there is likely to have been fact checked or been considered reliable at the time of publication. Does this proposal really need to specify which projects it applies to? Biographies of living people are likely outside the scopes of Wiktionary, Wikispecies, Meta, etc. Should this proposal even be limiting its focus to just biographies? Most stories about living people that Wikinews is likely to write about is unlikely to be in the form of a "biography". --darklama 08:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This should cover any project where there is original content being created that could potentially harm living people. Do you agree with that statement? I'm not sure if it needs to specify which projects it applies to. I originally wrote to be completely global, but people had concerns about negative impacts. What are your thoughts?

As a side note, NPOV is a core global policy for all Wikimedia projects.

--MZMcBride 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "original". I've seen confused people wonder if by original it means projects can only copy existing works. Most anything written on Wikimedia project is an original work even if it is not original information. I think for this proposal to find the right balance, to work well for all projects, and to avoid having a negative impact, it needs to consider the needs and scope of every project, much like what seems to have helped with the update to Wikimedia Commons' inclusion criteria awhile ago. Perhaps a code of ethics for works about living people would help? English Wikinews has Wikinews:Code of Ethics which includes things like "get all sides of the story", "avoid misrepresentation", and "minimize harm". Wikinews and Wikiversity both allow original research. If projects can define what a reliable source is than maybe original information obtained directly from the person being researched can be defined as a reliable source. A concern may be that projects have no say in what a reliable source is, or that reliable sources and original information are mutually exclusive.

I can't find the relevant links right now (plus it would be sidetracking this discussion), but its always been my understanding that Wikiversity was given a free pass on ignoring NPOV–at least some of the time, and was required to come up with a policy of what to do instead, which Wikiversity has. Also the very link you point to for NPOV, only mentions Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikinews. --darklama 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Wikisource

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

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

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

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

Enforcement

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

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

Maybe something along the lines that projects must ensure compliance (some projects might prefer to full protect BLPs for instance or to not have BLPs at all) instead of specifying blocking as the solution. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We should leave some discretion to individual projects, but there should be a minimum standard of enforcement. Kevin 23:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, inasmuch as we require that the content be removed, certainly. --MZMcBride 17:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Advertising this discussion

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

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

negative statements

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

I think there is a specific distinction between negative unsourced and normally unsourced due to the distinctions in possible harm that each of them can cause. Altering a BLP article adding a line with a structure such as "<The person> has been taking on a severe anti-<subject> stance due to negative comments in public" is much more of a WP:NPOV issue then an unsoruced statement about a birthday date.

What i am more interested in is cover criticism and praise in a balanced and neutral manner. It is fairly easy to indentify attack pages and promotional texts due to the way they are structured. Yet how would be cover the notable individuals that society shuns such as murderers? Describing a murderer will inherintly lead to a more negative biased article - how can such texts be balanced between good and bad? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

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

A variety of problems.

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

Yes, agree with everything said here by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You've lost me. On projects that allow original research, it is even more critical to ensure that living people are protected from untrue harmful statements. What problems do you envision by requiring that all original content on Wikimedia projects be sourced (esp. if negative) and appropriately reflect the life of an individual? --MZMcBride 17:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"A strict version of this policy would [...] lead to serious problems if the subjects made negative statements about others." Can you elaborate on this? Are you saying it would be A Bad Thing^TM to have a policy that prevented Wikinews from publishing negative, false statements about other living people from interviewees? Jennavecia|Talk 17:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not about whether the statements are false; it's about sourcing and presentation. To use a trivial example on the right side of the line - if Barack Obama makes some outrageous claims about Kim Jong-il (or vice versa) then those claims can be included in Wikinews as the newsworthy views of a prominent person on a matter of public interest. If he says them in a properly recorded interview then they're sourced to him and there should be no problem with publishing the interview. However, the overall context of the report should provide you with, for example, the denial made by the other party or at least that a comment from them isn't yet available. Sourcing for a news organisation doesn't always follow the same lines as sourcing for an encyclopaedia and there are going to be lots of greyer areas than that simple and perhaps unlikely example - clearly Wikinews needs its own detailed policy on the issue (if it doesn't already have one then that's extraordinarily irresponsible) - but each interview can't reasonably be required to be neutral and balanced within itself. It needs to be clear that the interviewee is speaking for themselves, it needs to be clear that their views are suitable material for a news report and other well sourced views need to be available with suitable prominence. Of course an interview isn't necessarily regarded as a "biography" anyway - you probably need a different word or phrase entirely if you want this to apply to news reports, dictionaries, quotations (you can't expect individual quotes to be 'neutral' - you can expext detailed policies on when negative quotes about other living people are permissible for inclusion) etc. 87.254.70.250 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Jenna, please don't construct strawmen. It would be a problem if the policy prevented Wikinews from publishing negative statements sourced solely to Wikinews interviewees. And despite the anon's statement above, that's exactly what this sounds like it would do. I'm also concerned about the use of the term "balance" above and that is going to need to get addressed as well. JoshuaZ 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a strawman, Joshua. It is a question. Be so kind as to answer it rather than, well, construct a strawman. Thanks. Jennavecia|Talk 21:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It would be a dangerous precedent to restrict the freedom of the press from on high, stating that the press must devote equal amounts of chunks of text to praising individuals as to criticizing them. And further, determining from on high what constitutes praise and criticism. These are all issues better suited for discussion on Wikinews locally, at the project-level. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? That has nothing to do with my question. Jennavecia|Talk 03:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

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

This is bizarre. Cirt: Nobody's talking about restricting freedom of the press. You need to calm down. DragonFire1024: Huh? The issue isn't if Obama says "I hate Kim Jong-il" and Wikinews records that. The issue is if Wikinews contains "Bob Smith is being investigated for murder" and there's no basis for the claim. People regularly try to use Wikimedia projects as forums to air a grudge or to simply vandalize using untrue, negative statements. When you have sites as high profile as the Wikimedia projects are, there's an obligation to have guidelines about what is and isn't appropriate, no? --MZMcBride 22:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"First, the proposal as written refers to "balance." Neutrality has a place per NPOV. False balance does not." - JoshuaZ

*Points up*, exactly. Let us drop the "biographies of living people" topic for a moment and talk about something a little more clear cut, but still in the same vein of thought. You're writing an article about Luna (Earth's moon). Do you 1)write the article using the best verified knowledge available, or do you 2)give equal time to the verified knowledge and to some nutjob who claims that the moon is made of green cheese (a few such people still exist. They're all insane of course, but they exist nonetheless).

This false balance, as JoshuaZ puts it, has crept into the MSM ever so slowly as time has passed. It started out as a good faith effort to engage in political correctness, but it has taken on a life of its own. Now they will indeed give equal time to both facts and fantasy simply to insert some artificial "balance" into their articles. Facts are facts. There is no balancing opinion to give. Note that this faux balance is *not* the same as NPoV. Indeed, this false balance violates NPoV straight to the core, because it inserts bias in an attempt to artificially create balance where none exists.

Another example, though this one is only tangentially related to the topic at hand. I was commenting on a Wikipedia talk page about a year ago. I stated that the article's tone wasn't NPoV. Even though the article itself didn't take one side or the other, the tone was "balanced" so as to attempt to shift the reader's sympathies in one direction (a direction that went against the facts of the article). One of the authors of the article responded to me and invoked Godwin's Law. He said (paraphrased), "You wouldn't expect an article about Einstein to have the same tone as one about Hitler, would you?"

I was astonished. Of course I'd expect those two articles to have the same tone. The facts speak for themselves. It is not our job to try and bias the reader in one direction or another. It is not our job to attempt to create balance where none exists. You know what? Sometimes someone is just wrong. There is nothing that we can do about that, without becoming political pundits, and spinning their wrongness to our advantage. That is not a direction in which I I want us to go. Our purpose is to report the facts, not to make someone seem more correct than they really are. Gopher65_talk 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

When I originally wrote the sentence, the thought in my mind was that you wouldn't want articles that only talk about the positive aspects and sound like a press release. And you wouldn't want articles that do the opposite. If there's a problem with a particular line, edit the page to make it better. :-) --MZMcBride 22:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

@MZMcBride (talk · contribs) - You incorrectly assume about my state of mind, I am in fact quite calm. :) Merely pointing out that it is wholly inappropriate to restrict the freedom of the press, externally from another project, as if from on high. Let Wikinews develop and enforce its own policies and processes, as the press and the nature of reporting is quite different from Wikipedia and writing biographical entries on individuals. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

MZMcBride: Done Gopher65_talk 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"cover criticism and praise in a balanced and neutral manner..." - this whole line should just be removed. Cirt (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. [1]. Controversial line, does not have consensus, does not make sense. Cirt (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikinews

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

I agree with SVTCobra (talk · contribs). The nature of Wikinews is such that it is quite different from Wikipedia, we do not write historical biographical articles about individuals and this would not apply as such. Perhaps before imposing policy from on high, individuals should first read up on our existing policies and practices of review already in place at Wikinews. :) Cirt (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

By my count, there are 27 Wikinewses. All of them have detailed policies and practices when writing about living people? You seem to be considering only the English Wikinews. --MZMcBride 22:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SVT and Cirt, but the reality is: If this does become a global policy, then it *will" effect Wikinews. I have already had an experience with information either being removed, or completely deleted altogether, without the chance to correct the issue(s). We don't need that to happen again on Wikinews. In regards to my earlier statement, if something is said about someone that is bad, harmful, or untrue, (in the case of Wikinews and interviews) then there is no reason for it to be removed, or rebutted with a statement about what the other side says. Yes we have a NPOV policy, but that is not NPOV. It is an interview with the person being interviewed, giving their opinion on what Wikinews is asking them. If such a statement were removed, according to this policy, then we may as well do away with WMF censorship policies. A person's opinion is just that. And the answer the person gives, also depends on the questions asked. This policy just simply does not make sense for Wikinews (in its current form), whether it applies to us or not. DragonFire1024 22:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with this version. :) Cirt (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

True, I am thinking of English Wikinews (I can't read the others) and en.wikinews may be the only one using Flagged Revisions, but I doubt any of them engage in biographies. But if they do or if they allow unsourced material then I suppose that this policy could be used to protect innocent living people from slander. What I am saying is that the people from my en.wikinews, need not fret. BLP won't apply to what we do. And if someone does manage to get (MZMCBride's example) "Bob Smith is being investigated for murder" through our review process and FlaggedRevs without sources and publishes it, then yes it should be removed immediately. This is inconceivable unless there's a conspiracy of multiple users. Therefore, I don't oppose the policy as long as it is agreed that it doesn't apply to sourced news articles. Those are not biographies. If you want to use BLP to strike down unsourced items that 'slipped' through, well fair enough ... though they should/would be deleted anyway per existing policies. --SVTCobra 22:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Positive statements

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

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

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

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

So to me, we should be emphasizing that *all* known false information is bad, and should be removed. Well, don't we already have policies that state that on every wiki out there? This entire policy is redundant, and therefore unnecessary. QED. Gopher65_talk 22:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment

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

Agree with this comment by Tempodivalse (talk · contribs). These are things best discussed locally, at the project-level. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's important to be clear to the outside world and the involved community that content that may harm living people is especially critical. Having a global policy (even if it's broad) is a step in the right direction. --MZMcBride 02:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Every project must act responsibly and minimize harm by removing any and all unsourced statements in biographies of living people immediately and with prejudice. - Well, certainly this part makes a lot of sense to me. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)