[WikiEN-l] Bans and online/offline reputation (was Re: Follow-up on my Ban from Wikipedia (part 3))

[Armed Blowfish]

On 11/09/2007, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Besides, if Wikipaedia is the only source
>> of certain negative information on these
>> people, and Wikipaedia is not a reliable
>> source, then why are negative Wikipaedia
>> pages still the #1 Google hits for some
>> of these people years after the fact?  BLP
>> applied to all namespaces, last I checked.
>
> Wikipedia is a reliable source for things about
> Wikipedia. While BLP may apply, it is not relevant.

It's about the banned user, not about Wikipaedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Sources

'Material about living persons must be sourced very
carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, a
biography will violate the No original research and
Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.'

Wikipaedia is not a 'reliable third-party source'.

'Material about living persons available solely in
questionable sources or sources of dubious value
should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory,
should not be used at all in biographies of living
people, either as sources or via external links (see
above).'

Few banned users, or indeed any editors or
former editors of Wikipaedia, have been written
about outside Wikipaedia, and even when they have
it is often in those other questionable sources
or sources of dubious value such as those wikis
and forums that criticise Wikipaedia regularly.

'Material from self-published books, zines, websites,
and blogs should never be used as a source about a
living person, unless written or published by the subject
of the article (see below).'

So the only material you could quote what the banned
user him or her self said - leaving up the userpage he
or she wrote him or her self before being banned would
be acceptable.  Note that this still does not make the
person in any way, shape, or form notable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article

'In some cases the subject may become involved in editing
the article, either directly or through a representative. While
Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about
themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects
of articles are welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced
material.'

Hear that, all ye banned users lurking on this list?  You are
*welcome* to circumvent your ban for the purpose of removing
'unsourced or poorly sourced material' about yourself on
Wikipaedia.

According to policy, at least.  In practise, if you did so, Wikipaedia
would probably just keep setting an example for Encyclopaedia
Dramatica to follow by making things worse on you, even if you
contact OTRS rather than circumvent your ban.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#People_who_are_relatively_unknown

'Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable
enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases,
editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant
to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should
not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary
source.'

Erm, how often is there *any* information on banned users relevant
to their 'notability', which is generally non-existent?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Privacy_of_contact_information

'Wikipedia biographies should not include addresses, e-mail
addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information
for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the
subject are generally permitted.'

E-mail addresses... and perhaps IP addresses?  Sometimes a
problem in sockpuppetry and COI investigations....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BLP#Privacy_of_names

'Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are
discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name
of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has
been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases), it
is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not
result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion
or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources
other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work
of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than
the brief appearance of names in news stories.'

First question, do this mean only legal names, or is it including
long-standing pseudonyms?

In any case, there are banned users who have edited under their
real names, so this is a problem.