Ed Poor wrote:
I think Jimbo mentioned last month that there is a problem with self-written biographies: other contributors may be excessively reluctant to 'contradict' the person who presumably knows himself best. This issue arose over the Sheldon Rampton article, although it little or no problem for the William Connelley article.
Jimbo expressed his opinion that this might be a problem, but he didn't offer any evidence to support his opinion, and he didn't propose any policy for dealing with it. Jimbo's theory was that people might be reluctant to contradict an article about me to which I have contributed, but his _reasons_ for thinking this were inconsistent:
(1) Jimbo thought people might not want to risk clashing with me, based perhaps on a perception that I have been combative on this listserv. There are several reasons, however, why this assertion doesn't hold up under scrutiny. To begin with, most Wikipedians don't subscribe to the listserv. Furthermore, there is no particular reason to expect that most Wikipedians consult an article's history before editing it, so many people wouldn't even _know_ whether I have edited the Sheldon Rampton article before undertaking their own edits. In fact, seven different people have made edits to the Sheldon Rampton article since I first contributed to it.
(2) The other issue, which Ed raises here, is whether other contributors would be "excessively reluctant to contradict the person who presumably knows himself best." This is indeed a bit of a dilemma, but the problem isn't in way unique to articles that happen to be self-referential. The same question would arise if someone with a PhD in biochemistry contributed to an article about serotonin, or a musicologist contributed to an article about Mozart. The fact is that people without special knowledge about a topic _should_ be somewhat careful about contradicting someone with special knowledge -- which of course doesn't mean that they should refrain entirely, just that they should be careful. But does Wikipedia want to adopt a _general_ policy that says people should make a special effort to avoid contributing to topics on which they have special knowledge, for fear of inhibiting lay contributors? That would be bizarre, and I think it would be equally bizarre to adopt that policy with regard to biographical articles.
(3) Perhaps the best argument against self-written biographies is that we all have a strong point of view about ourselves. There might be a problem with someone inserting a passionately slanted biography about himself and then adamantly defending it against all contrary points of view. However, I don't see any evidence that this is a worse problem than other POV conflicts that occur on Wikipedia, and in practice thus far it seems to be rare.
Interestingly, the concerns expressed in points (1) and (2) above could be entirely eliminated simply by adopting a policy that says people should contribute _anonymously_ whenever they contribute to a biography of themselves. If I had adopted some user name other than "Sheldon Rampton" when I contributed to the Sheldon Rampton article, no one would worry about clashing with me or about the presumption that I "know myself best." This, however, would come at the price of less transparency, and as a general rule I think transparency is a good thing.
As another interesting aside, the Disinfopedia recently had an exchange with Philip Stott, a British professor who is profiled there. Stott himself made a number of contributions to the Philip Stott article, and I think his participation improved it. Moreover, I saw no evidence that people who disagree with Stott's self-assessment were at all reluctant to contradict him. If people want to see how that article has developed to date, they can read it at the following URL:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Philip_Stott
Having said all this, I think there _is_ a potential problem with "vanity biographies," but this is really just a special case under Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It might be a good idea to have a policy against people _creating_ biographies of themselves, even though this would be impossible in practice to enforce.
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
Having said all this, I think there _is_ a potential problem with "vanity biographies," but this is really just a special case under Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It might be a good idea to have a policy against people _creating_ biographies of themselves, even though this would be impossible in practice to enforce.
I guess we have to distinguish between cases:
Case 1: a person about whom we'd write an article anyway. In this case, we'd perhaps be wary of NPOV problems. If the person is just adding information, this should be fine. Case 2: a person about whom we *wouldn't* write an article. This is the "vanity biography". It's this I was alluding to.
Anyway, it seems we have a couple of pages on this already http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Probably_not_famous_people http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Auto-biography
They need a bit of cleaning up though
I think this point of view problem is of the essence for Wikipedia. By definition what you write about yourself is simply not NPOV. And if there is any serious criticisms to be made (actually unusual for ordinary people) the trouble starts.
I think Wikipedia is just not set up to deal with this and most people would not want it to be.
Fred
From: Sheldon Rampton sheldon.rampton@verizon.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 12:18:13 -0600 To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: Clearer policy on self-written and obscure biographies
(3) Perhaps the best argument against self-written biographies is that we all have a strong point of view about ourselves. There might be a problem with someone inserting a passionately slanted biography about himself and then adamantly defending it against all contrary points of view. However, I don't see any evidence that this is a worse problem than other POV conflicts that occur on Wikipedia, and in practice thus far it seems to be rare.
May I suggest you are all being too hard on folks. Here's a suggested rule of thumb: If someone generates 100 or more google hits and their autobiography is reasonably brief then let it go, especially if they are a regular wikipedia contributor. I think you are needlessly hassling folks.
Fred
Fred Bauder wrote:
May I suggest you are all being too hard on folks. Here's a suggested rule of thumb: If someone generates 100 or more google hits and their autobiography is reasonably brief then let it go, especially if they are a regular wikipedia contributor. I think you are needlessly hassling folks.
Hey, by that rule, *I* get one! "tarquin unreal" gets 1470 Google hits! Wow!!!!!!!!!! And I've done nothing of note except release a tiny software add-on three years ago!
You don't HAVE to write it...
Fred
From: tarquin tarquin@planetunreal.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:44:09 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Autobiograpies
Fred Bauder wrote:
May I suggest you are all being too hard on folks. Here's a suggested rule of thumb: If someone generates 100 or more google hits and their autobiography is reasonably brief then let it go, especially if they are a regular wikipedia contributor. I think you are needlessly hassling folks.
Hey, by that rule, *I* get one! "tarquin unreal" gets 1470 Google hits! Wow!!!!!!!!!! And I've done nothing of note except release a tiny software add-on three years ago!
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred-
May I suggest you are all being too hard on folks. Here's a suggested rule of thumb: If someone generates 100 or more google hits and their autobiography is reasonably brief then let it go, especially if they are a regular wikipedia contributor. I think you are needlessly hassling folks.
Problem is verifiability, and highly idiosyncratic/POV stuff. These policies are really non-negotiable, and because self-written biographies are, from my experience, highly likely to be in violation, it's a good idea to recommend against starting them in the first place. But I see no problem with people contributing to their biographies -- we should extend a modicum of trust, but remove irrelevant stuff ("learned swimming at age 3") and ask for documentation on key facts.
I do agree that people have been somewhat unreasonably hassled. I blame that on a certain contingent of Wikipedians who seem to be OK with every article as long as it is written in correct English. This makes it difficult to agree on clear policies, which in turn leads to aggressive, prolonged disputes.
To be fair, there is another contingent that has very high standards as to what kind of material should be included, which are often in conflict with a totally open project like ours. IMHO it would be good for Jimbo to make some of the criteria for inclusion more definitive. We should always look at "worst case" scenarios. Do we want a million auto-generated articles from public records, for example?
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
To be fair, there is another contingent that has very high standards as to what kind of material should be included, which are often in conflict with a totally open project like ours.
"open" means anyone can edit. it does nmot mean anyone can add any old junk. Some of us have lofty ambitions for WP, that's all. Others don't take it as seriously.
On Thursday 01 January 2004 05:54 pm, Fred Bauder wrote:
May I suggest you are all being too hard on folks.
May I suggest that you are being too easy on this person. He added himself to [[list of ethicists]] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethicists), which includes the following in the intro paragraph:
"List of ethicists including religious or political figures recognized by those outside their tradition as having made major contributions to ideas about ethics, ..."
Best, Sascha Noyes
----- Original Message ----- From: "tarquin" tarquin@planetunreal.com
My point was that it's a terrible idea. This guy MRM Parrott is basically abusing the open nature of Wikipedia and using it as a platform for self-promotion.
In short: I would leave autobiographies growing alone without particular rules. I think the pov problem is not so different than in other cases. (In fact, it's easyier to address for autobio.) I don't think self-promotion is efficient on Wikipedia.
It is obvious that this guy is using Wikipedia for self-satisfaction while writing his own autobiography, and Wikipedia probably wouldn't work without this powerful self-fuelling system, but how could this "promotion" have the sligthest efficiency? One article in Wikipedia in an ant in the ant hill. If he wants to promote himself, he'd better go on the streets and do a naked headstand, or simply troll the usenet (where many readers will see his prose without having to ''look for'' it).
If I were God, I would gently remove him for list of ethicist, but leave him in list of persons (already done by someone else). I would leave him his page, but remove existing pov-erties if any.
Someone said here or somewhere that Wikipedia have no roof and no walls. If there is list of programmers, there is maybe a list of unreal programmers. If you have released a software for unreal, your name is to be on this list. If your name is on the list, it should (have to?) be a wikilink. If there is an empty wikilink, it means that an article has to be written, by anyone including you.
If you or Mr Parrott are stupid enough (I know you are not, I'm just weaving the thread) to write an autobiography that is obviously biaised, and can't retain yourself from stating that unreal or post-modernism is the best thing in the world because you feel better after saying that on something that matters to you, then it is likely that you will not be more neutral in contributing on [[unreal]] or [[post-modernism]] than on your own bio page (even worse: people will pay less attention on your edits). (Sorry for the length of previous sentence)
Ruimu