Wikipedia has already addressed this question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography. In summary, one should not add or change information about oneself, unless the change could not be considered to be non-controversial or there is some reason that a change should be made and the reasons for the change are laid out in a talk page. This is pretty much just the general conflict of interest guidelines applied to information about oneself, I think.
There was an instance of someone writing their own Wikipedia entry. (I'm not linking to information about the issue to somewhat hide the identity of the guilty.) The end of the discussion was that the page would not be taken down. The decision hinged, in part, on how easy it would be to anonymously enter or change information about oneself, so forbidding this kind of activity is impossible to police. The best that can be done is to point out that this kind of activity is strongly discouraged.
I think that the Wikipedia policy should be carried over directly to Wikidata. It lets responsible individuals fix or point out errors concerning information about them, but has strong admonitions against making any other kind of changes to this information.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
On 01/07/2015 06:25 AM, Markus Krötzsch wrote:
Back to Denny's original question:
Does anybody see a specific danger of abuse if living people get to edit their
own data right now? Entering wrong claims deliberately would maybe not be the
biggest issue here (since it is already in conflict with other general
policies -- we do not want wrong data, whoever is entering it -- and the fact
that we want to rely on external sources for all non-obvious data would still
apply). Could it be problematic if somebody enters too much/too detailed data
on their own person? Could somebody use this to place links to external web
content (spam) hidden in personal properties? But this, again, would probably
conflict with other policies too, and it does not seem to be a problem
specific to the particular POVs that a living person may have. Any other ideas
of possible abuse? My main question is: where could POV be an issue when
entering (externally referenced) data of the granularity that we have?
Some proposals of what we could allow/forbid that are specific to our special
form of content:
* Allow living people to edit certain properties on their own page
(whitelist)? I currently don't see any way of really abusing things like
birthdate, given name, etc. that are just personal properties, unless maybe in
rare cases where there is a real dispute (maybe a living person who insists on
being younger than he really is?).
* Alternatively, maybe it could even be enough to have a blacklist of certain
properties that one could be using in illegitimate ways (no specific idea now
what this might be).
* I would also allow people to set their labels and reasonable aliases, but
not have them enter any descriptions (could be POVed).
If living people are asked to not edit all or certain parts of their entity,
then there needs be a process for them to report errors. I would not like
wrong information to be broadcasted about me on Wikidata without having any
way to get it fixed.
In addition, there should be a template that one can use on one's user page to
disclose that one is the person described in a certain item. Conversely, we
should also use our "website account on" property (P553) to connect living
people to their Wikidata user account, so the COI is recorded in the data. One
could further disclose other COIs on one's user page in some standard format,
but maybe with Wikidata we could actually derive such COIs automatically (your
family members, the companies you founded, the university you graduated from,
etc. can all be specified in data).
Cheers,
Markus
On 04.01.2015 19:57, Andy Mabbett wrote:
Yes. they can. That's stated explicitly:
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution
disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure
policy, you may
comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when
contributing to that Project.
And Commons, for one, has already done so:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Paid_contribution_disclosure_policy
which says in full:
The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid
contributions from its contributors.
On 4 January 2015 at 07:40, Jasper Deng <jasper@jasperswebsite.com> wrote:
@Andy: no, the terms of use are the minimum because since a user must
legally accept them when editing a project, everyone is bound by them by
virtue of editing. Local projects cannot override that.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
wrote:
On 3 January 2015 at 18:13, Joe Filceolaire <filceolaire@gmail.com> wrote:
The terms of use are the minimum requirements. Each wiki may have more
requirements.
No, they are the *default* requirements. Each wiki may have *different*
requirements.
--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l