The intent of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is noble. But it ignores the real problem. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability have morphed into a dreadful guiding principle that sanctions inaccurate facts and avoids accountability. The Contacting the subjects of biographies section of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is bad policy because it sanctions erroneous data, stunts intellectual curiosity, and rewards laziness.
Contacting the subjects of biographies There is no obligation to contact the subject of a biography to ask permission to write it, or to inform the subject that one is being written. (100% agreement)
If contact with a subject is made, care must be taken not to reproduce details offered by the subject if these details have not been published elsewhere. (100% agreement if primary sources are included.)
For example, if the New York Times says that John Doe was born in 1955, but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965, the Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. (Complete disagreement).
To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original research. (100% disagreement. A person’s date of birth is not original research. DOB is a basic fact of society. It is verified daily by a wide spectrum of organizations.)
If the subject wants to correct the public record, he should do so by writing to the newspaper that made the mistake or to another credible publication. The Wikipedia article should then be changed to reflect any published correction or published letter to the editor. (100% disagreement. Filtering out accurate information is totally unacceptable. Wikipedia policy [NPOV, Original research, Verifiability] should never be interpreted in a way that makes Wikipedia 100% depend on another media outlet being ethical or perfect.)
There are also legal concerns about adding details that have come directly from the subject. How can you be completely sure who you are talking to? What if he maliciously tells you something false and defamatory in order to cause trouble for Wikipedia? Could you afterwards prove that you had spoken to him, and that he had been the source of the claims you added to his article? (100% disagreement. This is intellectually dishonest. Wikipedia is shifting accountability to other media outlets. This is a POV that Wikipedia has created from thin air. It ignores the fact that most other organizations collect information over the Internet. Banking, college/university applications, bookstores, retail shopping/swapping… are done on line everyday.)
Newspapers know how to deal with this kind of situation, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We do not have the resources to conduct this kind of original research, and if mishandled, it could lead to serious consequences for Wikipedia and for the subject of the biography. (100% disagree. Maybe this was true in the beginning, but is not true now. Wikipedia has many editors that know how to deal with these situations. They are told NOT to address the problem.)
Honest discussion. Fact-checking. Mandatory quality improvement practices. These are the solutions.
Regards, Sydney Poore
I agree with you Sydey, that biographies should be accurate, but taking information straight from the subject constitutes original research and since we can't see their identification papers it's not verifiable.
How do you suppose we verify the correctness of a given birthdate if there's no newspapers or books stating the date the subject says is correct.
(And don't forget you need to verify you're actually talking to the subject to begin with)
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I agree with you Sydey, that biographies should be accurate, but
taking information straight from the subject constitutes original research and since we can't see their identification papers it's not verifiable.
How do you suppose we verify the correctness of a given birthdate if there's no newspapers or books stating the date the subject says is correct.
(And don't forget you need to verify you're actually talking to the subject to begin with) Mgm
We need to use the same methods that other organizations use.
It is illegal to impersonate someone. Pointing this out will stop most people from falsifying records.
Requesting 3 forms of ID with a signed form (If done on line electronic signatures are common.)
Example of the Strictest method Proof of Identification http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/births/proofOfIdent.htm
I doubt most news organizations require anything this strict.
Sydney Poore
(And don't forget you need to verify you're actually talking to the subject to begin with) Mgm
We need to use the same methods that other organizations use. It is illegal to impersonate someone. Pointing this out will stop most people from falsifying records.
Probably the most extreme the admins would have to do is ask for a faxed statutory declaration. The local police station or whoever would verify their ID.
Steve
I agree with you Sydey, that biographies should be accurate, but taking information straight from the subject constitutes original research and since we can't see their identification papers it's not verifiable.
How do you suppose we verify the correctness of a given birthdate if there's no newspapers or books stating the date the subject says is correct.
It occurs to me that in academia, one occasionally sees "personal correspondance" or "publication forthcoming" cited. Is there something wrong with stating "The New York times gives Jim Smith's birthday as 24 May 1964, although Jim has stated that it's 24 May 1965[1]" where [1] is Personal email to Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Nov 2005. It's verifiable in the sense that you could always email Wikimedia and ask them if that's true.
Steve
On 12/21/05, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that in academia, one occasionally sees "personal correspondance" or "publication forthcoming" cited. Is there something wrong with stating "The New York times gives Jim Smith's birthday as 24 May 1964, although Jim has stated that it's 24 May 1965[1]" where [1] is Personal email to Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Nov 2005. It's verifiable in the sense that you could always email Wikimedia and ask them if that's true.
Steve
If it's a personal email to the Wikipedia Foundation, or to our lawyers or something, then that's a different matter. The problem is that the Wikimedia Foundation aren't the ones putting the facts in the articles. It's if User:RandomName puts in a new date of birth and cites at the bottom "Personal Correspondence". There's no way we can check if that's true, and there's no one to turn to if the article's subject starts demanding corrections and accountability.
Sam -- Asbestos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
On 21/12/05, Sam Fentress (Asbestos) asbestos999@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/21/05, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that in academia, one occasionally sees "personal correspondance" or "publication forthcoming" cited. Is there something wrong with stating "The New York times gives Jim Smith's birthday as 24 May 1964, although Jim has stated that it's 24 May 1965[1]" where [1] is Personal email to Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Nov 2005. It's verifiable in the sense that you could always email Wikimedia and ask them if that's true.
If it's a personal email to the Wikipedia Foundation, or to our lawyers or something, then that's a different matter. The problem is that the Wikimedia Foundation aren't the ones putting the facts in the articles. It's if User:RandomName puts in a new date of birth and cites at the bottom "Personal Correspondence". There's no way we can check if that's true, and there's no one to turn to if the article's subject starts demanding corrections and accountability.
Okay, so how would "allow personal correspondence where evidence is copied to the Foundation" sound?
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
If it's a personal email to the Wikipedia Foundation, or to our lawyers or something, then that's a different matter. The problem is that the Wikimedia Foundation aren't the ones putting the facts in the articles. It's if User:RandomName puts in a new date of birth and cites at the bottom "Personal Correspondence". There's no way we can check if that's true, and there's no one to turn to if the article's subject starts demanding corrections and accountability.
Definitely. Sorry, I was referring to the case where someone does contact the foundation, but has no published bio to refer to. Someone recently (here? On a talk page?) gave the example of themselves, where their DoB on WP was incorrect, but they couldn't find a published source to back them up. According to the guidelines, they had no right to remove it. If we accept personal correspondance to the foundation as a verifiable source, then a simple email would suffice.
Steve
Sam Fentress (Asbestos) wrote:
On 12/21/05, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
It occurs to me that in academia, one occasionally sees "personal correspondance" or "publication forthcoming" cited. Is there something wrong with stating "The New York times gives Jim Smith's birthday as 24 May 1964, although Jim has stated that it's 24 May 1965[1]" where [1] is Personal email to Wikimedia Foundation, 5 Nov 2005. It's verifiable in the sense that you could always email Wikimedia and ask them if that's true. Steve
If it's a personal email to the Wikipedia Foundation, or to our lawyers orsomething, then that's a different matter. The problem is that the WikimediaFoundation aren't the ones putting the facts in the articles. It's ifUser:RandomName puts in a new date of birth and cites at the bottom"Personal Correspondence". There's no way we can check if that's true, andthere's no one to turn to if the article's subject starts demandingcorrections and accountability.
Sam
Sam You said ''There's no way we can check if that's true, andthere's no one to turn to if the article's subject starts demandingcorrections and accountability.''
This seems to be where we see thing differently. I know birth, marriage, divorce, hometown, college, and employment are verifiable. If you have the _correct _information it is pretty easy. If someone provides valid ID (a mixture of distant and current) and gives Wikipedia the correct information, then we should be able to confirm it from outside sources. This is fact-checking not original research. -- Sydney Poore Go Bengals!
On 12/21/05, sydney poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
If someone provides valid ID (a mixture of distant and current) and gives Wikipedia the correct information, then we should be able to confirm it from outside sources. This is fact-checking not original research. -- Sydney Poore Go Bengals!
But... isn't that the whole point? If we can confirm it from outside sources then we're not discussing anything here. We all know that if we can confirm through outside sources then all is good.
The problem is that I, as a normal editor, have no way of verifying anything when User:Joe_Blog changes something in an article and just cites "Personal Correspondence". Do I leave it there or not? I say not.
Sam
-- Asbestos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Asbestos
Sam Fentress (Asbestos) wrote:
On 12/21/05, sydney poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
If someone provides valid ID (a mixture of distant and current) and gives Wikipedia the correct information, then we should be able to confirm it from outside sources. This is fact-checking not original research. Go Bengals!
But... isn't that the whole point? If we can confirm it from outside sources then we're not discussing anything here. We all know that if we can confirm through outside sources then all is good.
The problem is that I, as a normal editor, have no way of verifying anything when User:Joe_Blog changes something in an article and just cites "Personal Correspondence". Do I leave it there or not? I say not.
It depends on the kind of information involved. If it's routine personal information, it should probably stay.
Ec
The problem is that I, as a normal editor, have no way of verifying anything when User:Joe_Blog changes something in an article and just cites "Personal Correspondence". Do I leave it there or not?
I say not.
It depends on the kind of information involved. If it's routine personal information, it should probably stay.
It also depends on User:Joe_Blog being an entity that allows verification of its personal correspondance. Anyway we seemed to be agreed (I think?) that correspondance to the Wikipedia Foundation (name?) can be cited, so anyone finding incorrect bio information on themselves has a fairly easy way out - email them and cite it. If they don't believe you're you, then you may have some more hoops to jump through.
Steve
"sydney poore" wrote
To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original research. (100% disagreement. A person’s date of birth is not original research. DOB is a basic fact of society. It is verified daily by a wide spectrum of organizations.)
I have felt for a long time that OR _can_ be abused, as a stick to beat additions to articles. The principle does seem to be well established, though. This particular issue suggests to me that we haven't yet got the policy quite into focus.
We do want to stop people asserting they have important private sources, putting 2 and 2 together to make 5, and putting that on WP. Which is a recipe for conspiracy theorists running amok. It could be a real difficulty in some areas (e.g. coverage of espionage). To say that simple fact-checking is out makes, however, for an unpleasant dilemma: keep something you know is wrong on the site, or take down a wrong fact like DoB and simply leave a gap.
Charles
charles matthews wrote:
"sydney poore" wrote
To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original research. (100% disagreement. A person’s date of birth is not original research. DOB is a basic fact of society. It is verified daily by a wide spectrum of organizations.)
I have felt for a long time that OR _can_ be abused, as a stick to beat additions to articles. The principle does seem to be well established, though. This particular issue suggests to me that we haven't yet got the policy quite into focus.
We do want to stop people asserting they have important private sources, putting 2 and 2 together to make 5, and putting that on WP. Which is a recipe for conspiracy theorists running amok. It could be a real difficulty in some areas (e.g. coverage of espionage). To say that simple fact-checking is out makes, however, for an unpleasant dilemma: keep something you know is wrong on the site, or take down a wrong fact like DoB and simply leave a gap.
Charles
Fact-checking. I'm talking about correcting information if verifiable facts are provided, updating articles to keep current, or verifying as part of a quality assurance program.
Sydney Poore Go Bengals!
On 12/21/05, sydney poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original research. (100% disagreement. A person's date of birth is not original research. DOB is a basic fact of society. It is verified daily by a wide spectrum of organizations.)
Weren't we just celebrating, a few months ago, how we were able to "scoop" all the traditional news outlets on the news of Susan Sontag's death? That was unpublished information (at the time).
TD
On 21/12/05, Taco Deposit tacodeposit@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/21/05, sydney poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original research. (100% disagreement. A person's date of birth is not original research. DOB is a basic fact of society. It is verified daily by a wide spectrum of organizations.)
Weren't we just celebrating, a few months ago, how we were able to "scoop" all the traditional news outlets on the news of Susan Sontag's death? That was unpublished information (at the time).
It may be of some interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrea_Dworkin/Archive1 is the brief debate we had over whether or not to go with unconfirmed reports of her death. We predated the Guardian, the first major media to pick it up, by at least 24 hours and probably more.
(I still think we should have waited until after the Guardian published, though)
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
On 12/21/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/12/05, Taco Deposit tacodeposit@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/21/05, sydney poore poore5@adelphia.net wrote:
To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original research. (100% disagreement. A person's date of birth is not original research. DOB is a basic fact of society. It is verified daily by a wide
spectrum
of organizations.)
Weren't we just celebrating, a few months ago, how we were able to
"scoop"
all the traditional news outlets on the news of Susan Sontag's death?
That
was unpublished information (at the time).
It may be of some interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrea_Dworkin/Archive1 is the brief debate we had over whether or not to go with unconfirmed reports of her death. We predated the Guardian, the first major media to pick it up, by at least 24 hours and probably more.
(I still think we should have waited until after the Guardian published, though)
Yeah, I was thinking of Dworkin, not Sontag. Thanks. And I agree we should have waited.
TD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Andrea_Dworkin/Archive1 is the brief
debate we had over whether or not to go with unconfirmed reports of her death. We predated the Guardian, the first major media to pick it up, by at least 24 hours and probably more.
(I still think we should have waited until after the Guardian published, though)
Yeah, I was thinking of Dworkin, not Sontag. Thanks. And I agree we should have waited. TD
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Death information can wait for reports in the media. I think the example above is original research and should have waited. I hope everyone understands that I'm not advocating original research. I'm advocating fact-checking. Sydney
sydney poore wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Death information can wait for reports in the media. I think the example above is original research and should have waited. I hope everyone understands that I'm not advocating original research. I'm advocating fact-checking.
It could have gone on Wikinews as 'reports indicate' until verified by mainsteam press.
Conrad Dunkerson wrote:
sydney poore wrote:
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Death information can wait for reports in the media. I think the example above is original research and should have waited. I hope everyone understands that I'm not advocating original research. I'm advocating fact-checking.It could have gone on Wikinews as 'reports indicate' until verified by mainsteam press.
Wikinews is different. That is fine.