I think the problem is this: If someone challenges an editor over his or her
adding or protecting puffery in an article or for removing critical
information and accuses them of violating WP:AUTO the accused editor can
turn around and have his accusor punished for "outing" him. WP:HARASSMENT
was not intended to protect editors who are violating WP:AUTOBIO so I think
at the very least an exception should be written into WP:HARASSMENT for this
situation.
On 12/30/06, Guettarda <guettarda(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 12/30/06, Stephen Park <stephenpark15(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Currently Wikipedia has a policy protecting individuals who use
pseudonyms
from being "outed" and having their
legal names revealed. I think this
is
generally a good policy and I use it myself since
I edit using a
pseudonym.
The problem is when use of a pseudonym allows individuals to
surreptitiously
edit an article on themselves in a self-promotional or at least a
self-interested way. The guideline in WP:AUTO is that individuals are
discouraged from editing in an autobiographical manner and that if they
do
so it's a "good idea" if they
identify themselves. However, if they
don't,
anyone who suspects someone of editing
autobiographically is restrained
from
voicing their suspicions, even if they have very strong evidence, by
WP:HARASSMENT's prohibition against "outing" people.
I think we should allow people to maintain their anonymity but that
there
needs to be an understanding that if you want to
be anonymous you can't
take
advantage of that anonymity by editing an article on yourself ie your
right
to anonymity ends once you transgress WP:AUTO.
What do people think about have a policy (say as part of BLP) that
states
that any editor who edits a biographical article
on themselves must
identify
disclose that they are doing so and modifying WP:HARASS in order to
create
an exception to the "no posting of private
information" rule in the case
where someone is editing an autobiographical article surreptitiously?
And
how should this be permitted? Should editors be
permitted to ask
CheckUsers
to verify that a suspected auotobiographer's location is consistent with
that of the person they're writing about? Should editors be permitted to
go
to WP:ANI or WP:Request for Arbitration and voice a concern that someone
is
editing autobiographically without declaring themselves?
As one example, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApol…
there's a balance between anonymity and WP:AUTO and WP:COI (which may
be
more important). The underlying issue is, if you can write an NPOV
article
about yourself, no one will be any the wiser. If you write something that
sounds promotional, most people will change it if they notice. If you
edit-war to remove unfavourable material from a bio, and you only edit
articles related to that bio, then people will figure things out quickly
enough.
We don't have policies and guidelines just for the fun of it - we
discourage
editing articles about yourself and your family members because even good
editors have a hard time writing an NPOV article about topics like
that. If
you suspect that someone is too close to the subject then you can politely
point them towards AUTO and COI - these guidelines are most effective when
people voluntarily respect them. If they are still disruptive, treat them
as you would any other disruptive editor.
Ian
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l