You'd have thought that our current policy list at "What Wikipedia is Not" is clear enough on the matter of any old person off the street adding an article about themselves to Wikipedia: self-published authors, new prophets, and so on.
But with rising awareness of WP, this will be an increasing problem. See for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M.R.M._Parrott
On VFD he author argues that nothing in our policy forbids a biography of him, even though we've found only two reviews of his books. As well as being what we call "non-encyclopedic", these can't be NPOV since the facts can't be verified.
Should we write a specific policy page about this, to expand the entry on WWisNot, in a similar way to what I did recently for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ?
Tarquin wrote in part:
See for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:M.R.M._Parrott
On VFD he author argues that nothing in our policy forbids a biography of him, even though we've found only two reviews of his books. As well as being what we call "non-encyclopedic", these can't be NPOV since the facts can't be verified.
We don't need a special policy for autobiographies which states that unverifiable biographies are unacceptable, if we already have a policy that all articles must be verifiable. That said, it's justifiable, in meta pages on biography conventions, to ''mention'' that all articles, including biographies, should be verifiable. And it would be a good idea to mention this if there have been problems -- which it seems that there have! But this is not Yet Another Policy ^_^.
-- Toby
Toby Bartels wrote:
We don't need a special policy for autobiographies which states that unverifiable biographies are unacceptable, if we already have a policy that all articles must be verifiable. That said, it's justifiable, in meta pages on biography conventions, to ''mention'' that all articles, including biographies, should be verifiable. And it would be a good idea to mention this if there have been problems -- which it seems that there have! But this is not Yet Another Policy ^_^.
Agreed. It's making a page to explain this particular aspect of existing policy. My motivation is that when I directed MRM Parrott to "what WP is not" he said that nothing there prevented him having an article.
I think I have made up my mind about what Wikipedia's policy ought to be. Looking at the comments made on Votes for Deletion regarding MRM Parrott it seems that the amount of heat generated by those who feel Wikipedia is being used for self-promotion far outweighs the amount of knowlege that is imparted in the article, MRM Parrott.
I also note that the debate rapidly turns nasty with Mark (MRM Parrott} being protrayed as essentially, "no good", a gross exaggeration of whatever defects he may have.
It is hard to establish presence on the internet and in popular and academic culture. You can have a really cool website, have great ideas, write and publish books, some of them quite good and not much happens. Your books don't get reviewed in important media by significant reviewers, not even bad reviews. Your books don't sell, even a good one with something to say. And it is frustrating. It is understandable why people in such circumstances try to promote themselves.
Therefore I propose that when an apparent autobiography is encountered that a note be made in the talk page of the article, and on the page of the editor if they are a wikipedia user linking to our autobiographical policy (Which ought to clearly state that it is against Wikipedia policy to engage in writing self-promoting aricles about yourself or your projects). We should also make a reasonable attempt to contact them by email (googling for their websites may work for anonymous editors) and explain the policy.
After a reasonable chance to respond (here it gets a bit tricky, since they usually can't delete the page they made themselves) then the page should be listed on votes for deletion or simply deleted with the authors consent now that they understand the policy. I think the rule probably needs to be hard and fast, all autobiographies are to be deleted, regardless of fame or lack of it. In the case of folks who rate an article for some reason we can trust someone will eventually write one.
In summary, we should be courteous, understanding, and bottom line, firm.
Hopefully we can minimize hurt feelings and maintain encyclopedic policy.
Fred
From: tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:46:45 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Clearer policy on self-written and obscure biographies
Toby Bartels wrote:
We don't need a special policy for autobiographies which states that unverifiable biographies are unacceptable, if we already have a policy that all articles must be verifiable. That said, it's justifiable, in meta pages on biography conventions, to ''mention'' that all articles, including biographies, should be verifiable. And it would be a good idea to mention this if there have been problems -- which it seems that there have! But this is not Yet Another Policy ^_^.
Agreed. It's making a page to explain this particular aspect of existing policy. My motivation is that when I directed MRM Parrott to "what WP is not" he said that nothing there prevented him having an article.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Tarquin wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
We don't need a special policy for autobiographies which states that unverifiable biographies are unacceptable, if we already have a policy that all articles must be verifiable. ... And it would be a good idea to mention this if there have been problems -- which it seems that there have! But this is not Yet Another Policy ^_^.
Agreed. It's making a page to explain this particular aspect of existing policy. My motivation is that when I directed MRM Parrott to "what WP is not" he said that nothing there prevented him having an article.
I don't think that there ''is'' anything on WWIN that: * prevents this article; ''and'' * pertains particularly to biographies. Since the page is long, that might explain why Parrott missed the bits that: * prevent this article for more generic reasons. ^_^
Perhaps he should be pointed to [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], particularly [[#Obscure topics]]? (This is just ideas on tactics.)
-- Toby
On Saturday 03 January 2004 12:46, tarquin wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
We don't need a special policy for autobiographies which states that unverifiable biographies are unacceptable, if we already have a policy that all articles must be verifiable. That said, it's justifiable, in meta pages on biography conventions, to ''mention'' that all articles, including biographies, should be verifiable. And it would be a good idea to mention this if there have been problems -- which it seems that there have! But this is not Yet Another Policy ^_^.
Agreed. It's making a page to explain this particular aspect of existing policy. My motivation is that when I directed MRM Parrott to "what WP is not" he said that nothing there prevented him having an article.
I don't really understand what is the problem with autobiographies and why are they more unverifiable then biographies written by someone else. If we write an article about a dead person, for facts on its life we might consult person's autobiography, or biography, and biographies are often in large part written by biographer talking to person about person's life. I don't see how is it different then person writing about itself - it's the same source at the end.
From: Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu
I don't really understand what is the problem with autobiographies and why are they more unverifiable then biographies written by someone else. If we write an article about a dead person, for facts on its life we might consult person's autobiography, or biography, and biographies are often in large part written by biographer talking to person about person's life. I don't see how is it different then person writing about itself - it's the same source at the end.
An autobiography is a good primary source, but it embodies the very essence of point of view and must be used with that in mind, as are interviews with the person or with family members and friends or a diary. Most of the problem with the alleged autobiographies which end up listed on votes for deletion is that they are usually submitted by an anonymous user, contain only information postive about the subject, often exaggerating accomplishments, and a defining characteristic, cute material, like "he always wears a monocle over an eyepatch", (an actual example from the current vfd, see [[Thomas Jackson]]). They are in Jungian terms, portraits of the persona, the self-image of the person as they project themselves. This is part of the problem, as folks are sensitive about their persona and "deleting" it does not go down well, nor does critical editing.
When you google the name you sometimes find nothing [[Thomas Jackson]], or maybe a nice personal website (but Wikipedia is not a web directory). If there are books published, they are self-published, with no reviews. Other times you find a little bit [[Joseph Buford Cox]] and [[R. Joe Brandon]], occasionaly a lot [[Florentin Smarandache]]. In some cases you can write a bit of an article or maybe a sustantial one, and perhaps save it from deletion as I tried with [[Joseph Buford Cox]] and [[R. Joe Brandon]]
As I posted before, I believe the best policy is gently but firmly say no to all of them. However, in practice, I find it fun to see if I can dig up enough info to save them. But that will pass. But maybe someone else will take it up from time to time.
Fred
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
An autobiography is a good primary source, but it embodies the very essence of point of view and must be used with that in mind, as are interviews with the person or with family members and friends or a diary. Most of the problem with the alleged autobiographies which end up listed on votes for deletion is that they are usually submitted by an anonymous user, contain only information postive about the subject, often exaggerating accomplishments, and a defining characteristic, cute material, like "he always wears a monocle over an eyepatch", (an actual example from the current vfd, see [[Thomas Jackson]]).
I'm not impressed by the person, and reading the article doesn't help. When something like this has been clearly contributed under a person's own name, I support moving it to a user page. Anonymous contributors put themselves at a disadvantage because there is no one to contact to ask for information. This one sat unnoticed since January of last year! When I think of Thomas Jackson the image that comes to mind is of the Canadian singer, actor and native activist
When you google the name you sometimes find nothing [[Thomas Jackson]], or maybe a nice personal website (but Wikipedia is not a web directory). If there are books published, they are self-published, with no reviews. Other times you find a little bit [[Joseph Buford Cox]] and [[R. Joe Brandon]], occasionaly a lot [[Florentin Smarandache]]. In some cases you can write a bit of an article or maybe a sustantial one, and perhaps save it from deletion as I tried with [[Joseph Buford Cox]] and [[R. Joe Brandon]]
I support the approach of making reasonable efforts to save these from deletion. A little help from the subject helps!
As I posted before, I believe the best policy is gently but firmly say no to all of them. However, in practice, I find it fun to see if I can dig up enough info to save them. But that will pass. But maybe someone else will take it up from time to time.
I still prefer finding some way to save them in an appropriate controlled context. I've never been a fan of VfD. That process is just too confrontational, and seems based on a presumption of guilt.
Ec