After a post here mentioned it, I went to WP:COI and WP:AUTO.
These two articles seem to promote the view that you're not supposed to edit an article about yourself.
However, WP:BLP seems to suggest that you can to remove libel or unsourced material, and it's a common refrain to complaints about Wikipedia, "why didn't you just fix the article yourself?"
It just isn't consistent to both expect people to fix the article about themselves, and expect them not to, at the same time. It's true, of course, that neither WP:AUTO nor WP:COI are absolute prohibitions, but they discourage it in *such* strong terms that anyone who comes to Wikipedia with a complaint about an article about themselves and stumbles across either guideline, will think that fixing the article isn't allowed. The subtlety that "strongly discouraged" doesn't mean "prohibited", or that even a new user is permitted to violate a guideline, is something they'll completely miss.
How can this be fixed? I complained on the COI talk page and nobody seems to care. And I suspect just editing the guidelines myself would be reverted within the hour.
On 03/04/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
After a post here mentioned it, I went to WP:COI and WP:AUTO.
These two articles seem to promote the view that you're not supposed to edit an article about yourself.
However, WP:BLP seems to suggest that you can to remove libel or unsourced material, and it's a common refrain to complaints about Wikipedia, "why didn't you just fix the article yourself?"
It just isn't consistent to both expect people to fix the article about themselves, and expect them not to, at the same time. It's true, of course, that neither WP:AUTO nor WP:COI are absolute prohibitions, but they discourage it in *such* strong terms that anyone who comes to Wikipedia with a complaint about an article about themselves and stumbles across either guideline, will think that fixing the article isn't allowed. The subtlety that "strongly discouraged" doesn't mean "prohibited", or that even a new user is permitted to violate a guideline, is something they'll completely miss.
How can this be fixed? I complained on the COI talk page and nobody seems to care. And I suspect just editing the guidelines myself would be reverted within the hour.
If you propose an exemption where the policies conflict, I'm sure most would support you.
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Oldak Quill wrote:
If you propose an exemption where the policies conflict, I'm sure most would support you.
So a newcomer sees 20 paragraphs about how you're not supposed to edit your own article, and then a sentence saying otherwise.
I don't think that'll work unless you make the exemption prominent enough that it doesn't seem like an afterthought to anyone reading the page. And that I don't think is possible. Ideally, we should soften the language that implies a near-absolute prohibition, but nobody will stand for that.
I just made that new thing for BLP checks at [[WP:BLPC]]. Maybe a formal exception so they can add that to the talk page or the article to get immediate attention if its actually a BLP matter?
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Oldak Quill wrote:
If you propose an exemption where the policies conflict, I'm sure most would support you.
So a newcomer sees 20 paragraphs about how you're not supposed to edit your own article, and then a sentence saying otherwise.
I don't think that'll work unless you make the exemption prominent enough that it doesn't seem like an afterthought to anyone reading the page. And that I don't think is possible. Ideally, we should soften the language that implies a near-absolute prohibition, but nobody will stand for that.
The balancing concern is the eleven zillion people who believe they have a divine right to control anything said about them and theirs, and far more time and energy to devote to a single article than we do.
Our policies unfortunately serve a dual role: they are guidance for those who want it, and a stick for those who refuse the guidance. It seems like the two needs are in conflict here.
William
On 03/04/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Oldak Quill wrote:
If you propose an exemption where the policies conflict, I'm sure most would support you.
So a newcomer sees 20 paragraphs about how you're not supposed to edit your own article, and then a sentence saying otherwise.
I don't think that'll work unless you make the exemption prominent enough that it doesn't seem like an afterthought to anyone reading the page. And that I don't think is possible. Ideally, we should soften the language that implies a near-absolute prohibition, but nobody will stand for that.
Most rules have exemptions. If that takes anyone off guard by our rules having exemptions, I'd be surprised. Just make it clear by placing it near the top or giving it a section header.
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Oldak Quill wrote:
Most rules have exemptions. If that takes anyone off guard by our rules having exemptions, I'd be surprised. Just make it clear by placing it near the top or giving it a section header.
If I was a newcomer and I stumbled on the guideline, and I did notice the exception, my reaction would be "oh, I guess if you're very experienced at this stuff and you know exactly when to use it, you might get away with making an exception". I certainly wouldn't conclude that an exception could be properly used by a new user, at least unless it said something like "even non-experienced users may remove unsourced material...."
On 4/4/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
After a post here mentioned it, I went to WP:COI and WP:AUTO.
These two articles seem to promote the view that you're not supposed to edit an article about yourself.
However, WP:BLP seems to suggest that you can to remove libel or unsourced material, and it's a common refrain to complaints about Wikipedia, "why didn't you just fix the article yourself?"
Can we focus this debate on what we believe the correct situation should be, then update policy to match that?
I don't think much good will come from telling people to fix libel in their own articles. Because a) They shouldn't have to b) It will quickly get confused and sound like you can change *anything* in your own articles c) It will probably cause an argument, especially because it will always be a newcomer who doesn't understand wikipedia, and things will end badly.
It's much better the existing way, where libelees complain to OTRS or something, and something with a clue handles it.
Steve
Not to mention that the subject and other people will differ in opinion on what is libellous and than you still have the fuzzier "undue weight" which, while cited spends half an article talking about controversies that are barely relevant.
Mgm
On 4/4/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/4/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
After a post here mentioned it, I went to WP:COI and WP:AUTO.
These two articles seem to promote the view that you're not supposed to
edit
an article about yourself.
However, WP:BLP seems to suggest that you can to remove libel or
unsourced
material, and it's a common refrain to complaints about Wikipedia, "why
didn't
you just fix the article yourself?"
Can we focus this debate on what we believe the correct situation should be, then update policy to match that?
I don't think much good will come from telling people to fix libel in their own articles. Because a) They shouldn't have to b) It will quickly get confused and sound like you can change *anything* in your own articles c) It will probably cause an argument, especially because it will always be a newcomer who doesn't understand wikipedia, and things will end badly.
It's much better the existing way, where libelees complain to OTRS or something, and something with a clue handles it.
Steve
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
I don't think much good will come from telling people to fix libel in their own articles. Because a) They shouldn't have to b) It will quickly get confused and sound like you can change *anything* in your own articles c) It will probably cause an argument, especially because it will always be a newcomer who doesn't understand wikipedia, and things will end badly.
It's much better the existing way, where libelees complain to OTRS or something, and something with a clue handles it.
Letting people fix it themselves, though, has one advantage: it's removed *immediately*, not when some volunteer gets around to it. Moreover, figuring out who to complain to is itself something that newcomers may find difficult to do.
It's stupid to tell people "you can edit anything in Wikipedia except the one thing which is affecting your life. You must figure out the proper bureaucratic procedure to use and go through that instead."
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 06:29:53 -0700 (PDT), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Letting people fix it themselves, though, has one advantage: it's removed *immediately*, not when some volunteer gets around to it. Moreover, figuring out who to complain to is itself something that newcomers may find difficult to do.
Yes. This situation, though, should be fixable. Nobody should have to stand against all comers in removing offensive material about them, and neither is it fair to expect them to judge what is objectively fair when they are personally involved.
The box:
[ If you feel it necessary to make changes to Wikipedia articles despite a real or perceived conflict of interest, we '''strongly encourage''' you to submit content for community review on the article's talk page or file a [[WP:RFC|Request for Comment]] to the wider community, and to let one or more trusted community members judge whether the material belongs in Wikipedia. ]
should, I think be added to along the lines of:
[ If you see something in an article where you are conflicted, which you consider to be offensive or defamatory, you are requested to [[Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject)|contact us immediately]], our volunteers will aim to assist you in resolving your issue ]
Guy (JzG)
On 4/4/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Letting people fix it themselves, though, has one advantage: it's removed *immediately*, not when some volunteer gets around to it. Moreover, figuring
I think we act pretty quickly in those cases.
out who to complain to is itself something that newcomers may find difficult to do.
It's stupid to tell people "you can edit anything in Wikipedia except the one thing which is affecting your life. You must figure out the proper bureaucratic procedure to use and go through that instead."
That's a separate issue. I've argued before for the creation of a simple, user-friendly GUI which directs users through the reporting of problems. We do need to make it much easier.
Steve
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:12:38 -0700 (PDT), arromdee@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:
After a post here mentioned it, I went to WP:COI and WP:AUTO. These two articles seem to promote the view that you're not supposed to edit an article about yourself. However, WP:BLP seems to suggest that you can to remove libel or unsourced material, and it's a common refrain to complaints about Wikipedia, "why didn't you just fix the article yourself?"
A valid criticism.
I boldly added a Nutshell to AUTO:
[ This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct errors of fact ]
Hopefully that will help move things in the direction of forwards.
Guy (JzG)
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
After a post here mentioned it, I went to WP:COI and WP:AUTO. These two articles seem to promote the view that you're not supposed to edit an article about yourself. However, WP:BLP seems to suggest that you can to remove libel or unsourced material, and it's a common refrain to complaints about Wikipedia, "why didn't you just fix the article yourself?"
A valid criticism.
I boldly added a Nutshell to AUTO:
[ This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct errors of fact ]
Hopefully that will help move things in the direction of forwards.
It's a tiny step. It's not *bad*, but I don't think it'll help much either, because the real problem has always been one of emphasis. Just adding a sentence doesn't change the emphasis all that much; cumulatively, WP:AUTO and WP:COI still state in such strong terms that a user should not edit his own article that most if not all new users will conclude that they're not supposed to do it.
It's only going to be solved by going through both articles line by line and making it clear throughout them, not just in one sentence at the top, that it isn't meant to discourage fixing libel or unsourced statements. And I'm not going to (and can't) do it.
Besides, saying "other than to correct factual errors" interferes with another policy: verifiability, not truth. You aren't allowed to correct verifiable false information (and believe me, I argued against this one lots of times in WP:ATT).