On 11/09/2007, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, if Wikipaedia is the only source of certain negative information on these people, and Wikipaedia is not a reliable source, then why are negative Wikipaedia pages still the #1 Google hits for some of these people years after the fact? BLP applied to all namespaces, last I checked.
Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about Wikipedia. While BLP may apply, it is not relevant.
It's about the banned user, not about Wikipaedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Sources
'Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.'
Wikipaedia is not a 'reliable third-party source'.
'Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links (see above).'
Few banned users, or indeed any editors or former editors of Wikipaedia, have been written about outside Wikipaedia, and even when they have it is often in those other questionable sources or sources of dubious value such as those wikis and forums that criticise Wikipaedia regularly.
'Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).'
So the only material you could quote what the banned user him or her self said - leaving up the userpage he or she wrote him or her self before being banned would be acceptable. Note that this still does not make the person in any way, shape, or form notable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the...
'In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.'
Hear that, all ye banned users lurking on this list? You are *welcome* to circumvent your ban for the purpose of removing 'unsourced or poorly sourced material' about yourself on Wikipaedia.
According to policy, at least. In practise, if you did so, Wikipaedia would probably just keep setting an example for Encyclopaedia Dramatica to follow by making things worse on you, even if you contact OTRS rather than circumvent your ban.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown
'Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source.'
Erm, how often is there *any* information on banned users relevant to their 'notability', which is generally non-existent?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Privacy_of_contact_information
'Wikipedia biographies should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.'
E-mail addresses... and perhaps IP addresses? Sometimes a problem in sockpuppetry and COI investigations....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names
'Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their 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.'
First question, do this mean only legal names, or is it including long-standing pseudonyms?
In any case, there are banned users who have edited under their real names, so this is a problem.