Wikipedia talk:BLP subject response

Comments

Ok, this is something that I consider "on the table" of things that wouldn't violate our core values, yet would still protect living people. Now to get some discussion going! MBisanz ^talk 07:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of being able to draw upon individuals to supply general information or corrections for their articles, but giving them the right to rebut everything printed in their bio will easily clash with NPOV.

It's probably safest to have communication between biographical subjects and Wikipedia remain in the hands of the OTRS system and/or the Office. Individuals with a complaint should be actively steered away from the general editing community, which likes to turn everything into a fight.--Father Goose (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was concerned about the NPOV problem, which is why I proposed keeping such a "rebuttal" on a separate page. The rebuttal (or more general response) would be "out of the way" from the main biography so that it stays (or should stay) neutral, but the response would be easily accessible. In practice we already allow people to post all sorts of biases and opinions on their userpages, in blatant disregard to NPOV, so I don't think this is a big leap in that regard. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

BLP subjects can already participate on the article talk page and use the OTRS system to get inaccurate information removed. This will quickly become a POV issue (it's essentially allowing a BLP subject to create a WP:POVFORK) and violates WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and WP:NOT#WEBSPACE. A BLP subject can write a rebuttal on their official website and that can be included in the External links. Karanacs (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"A BLP subject can write a rebuttal on their official website and that can be included in the External links." The BLP may not want to advertise the problematic wikipedia bio on their official website. Wikipedia should host the rebuttal. A linked subdirectory would be appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

All articles already have talk pages, like Karanacs said. It's not a good idea to add a new element to Wikipedia that is unneeded and would inevitably attract contention. --MQDuck 09:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I like the principle of it: - it seems very appropriate and fair that a fact or balance contended by a subject, should have this made clear.

But this proposal in this form, draws us far closer to a battleground or POV forking, that I'd like, and I fear will cause problems that need considering beforehand. One obvious problem is, we'd have articles based on reliable sources and such, but also myriad second pages, by non-wikipedians, with whatever kind or quality of essay the subject wants to write, whether appropriate, fair, attacking/blaming others, or otherwise. What if the subject wants to write as "their view", something that says someone else did wrong, not them, for example, as an "essential part" of their statement? And perhaps then a party they mention as being at fault demands we delete this as a BLP attack on them? We're then hosting people's personal attacks, their rants, their autobiographies, or their defamation of others, in some cases. A horrible can of worms. Not good to dive into that one without thought.

A better handling would perhaps be adding this one statement to WP:BLP:

"The viewpoint of the subject of an article or section is always to be considered a significant viewpoint for the purposes of neutral point of view policy, in the context of biographical material on them."

"A web page containing the subject's views on encyclopedic factual matters may always be linked and cited for the purposes of this, provided this would not breach Wikipedia:No personal attacks and particularly, the section on external links."

The advantage here is, then we're back in normal sane balanced territory. If the bio-subject can post up their view on the factual matters in the article for us somewhere on the net, and makes it comply with the minimal standard of NPA/external links (which we can help with), then editors would then be under a duty to always consider it as a significant viewpoint for NPOV. This guarantees the bio-subject's view is there, in the article, in a balanced integrated manner. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This amendment to BLP sounds good, it addresses the concerns I would have with this proposal, while giving what would hopefully be a relatively easy way for the subject of an article provide a source for the article and providing for it's use (in a NPOV way of course) in the article. Davewild (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The problem identified is real, but the original proposal would break down in too many cases. Something along the lines of what has been proposed here is more likely to be sustainable, and a reasonable middle ground. I do foresee practical problems, as the volume of hits from WP would be likely to overwhelm the average web hosting service, but we can always work with the subjects to point them in the right direction. I also would consider modifying the standard BLP notice template with a link directly to the OTRS page to make it easier for subjects to obtain assistance when they need to do so. Xymmax (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I really like your suggestion here, for adding to WP:BLP. You should take it there. It might even be moderate enough to happen. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Relatively minor Objections

1. incorrect interpretation of NPOV. NPOV does not mean that we permit unsourced partisan statements on both sides; it means we include fair sourced material prepared by third parties regardless of whether it is negative or positive. Even if we were to have separate pages for a controversial subject, say Bush, for views supporting him and opposing him, these need to be views appearing in responsible publications prepared under editorial supervision. We can show samples of biased material supporting or attacking him, but only in context as excerpts.
2. WP is an encyclopedia. We are not providing a platform for partisanship, or a platform for debate, we're presenting an encyclopedia.We can talk about debates which occur outside. We don't hold them here. That would be the equivalent of OR. We would become a primary source for the views of the party.
3. fairness. The subject can present whatever he chooses to say about the events of his life. Other parties can't--they're limited to sources in he ordinary way. He can present whatever sort of a biased and outrageouly deceiptful defense he pleases, while the others are subject to the ordinary rules.
4. links. I don't se the point of requiring an external website. what is the difference to letting him copy from whatever biased statement he wishes, and hosting it ourself in the first place. We have the same responsibility. DGG (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Partly yes. In its original form, this idea would probably not work. I agree with your #1, #2 and well spotted #3. I do think though, that if the subject is prepared to write a view that meets NPA, BLP and EL, that there is benefit in saying the article should take note of it as a significant view. Notice it is not said what weight that view gets, because that will vary tremendously. But that the subjects view in a BLP article is by default significant, is I think reasonable. Even if the subject were a fraudster or murderer, to note that "X says Y" where the statement doesnt attack others or breach policies, is probably reasonable. It at least provides a route to resolve it. if they write a statement that presents their stance but does not attack others, that we can fairly link to, then we can use that to represent their view with whatever weight is appropriate. I'm inclined to say in any BLP matter where an aspect or event in someone's life is at issue, their view probably is a significant one to represent for neutrality, so I have no issue with formalizing this as our way to handle the problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Really major objection

1. Failure of NPOV and BLP with respect to other people. A persons life does not stand alone. Take a person accused of financial misdealings--s/he usually justifies his deeds by the deed of those opposed to him. Take a person accused of sexual harassment--s/he usually defends himself by accusing the other party. Take a person accused of murder--the best defense is to accuse the real criminal. How would Stalin have defending his views? by trying to show how his enemies were traitors. Take Brandt, to give an example that applies immediately and realistically--his defense is to accuse his opponents. DGG (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. In its original form, this proposal wouldn't work. I think I made a similar/same point too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, not workable. Is OTRS not enough? LPs can also edit the talk page and present arguments and sources if they wish. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Important objection

As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the articles here change frequently. If the article subject complains about a part of the article, it might be changed. Now that subject has to do another assessment, and we wind up with a string of "rebuttals" to many of the edits that take place. Another point: there are going to be two problems an article subject might have- the information is wrong, in which case it should be removed, or they just don't like it (a.k.a. they think it's wrong while the sources disagree), in which case it would be a COI concern to remove it. It leads us to a net effect of a subpage that's badly against WP:AUTO, and doesn't serve much other purpose. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. In its original form, this proposal wouldn't work. I think I made a similar/same point too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, we are not a soapbox. This is not the place to come and espouse rebuttals on our articles. The subject can simply state their case on the talk page to our editors, not our readers. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur. If there's a severe problem with the bio, well that's what OFFICE/OTRS is for. Otherwise, take it up on the talk page of the article. There's no need to give undue weight to one person's opinion. (Especially since someone's opinion of themselves is unlikely to meet NPOV. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it's enough of a problem to make the biographical subject upset, it should be handled by OTRS/Office exclusively (even if their answer must be a polite, "No, we can't change it for you"). Like I said above, Wikipedia editors like to turn everything into a fight, so the talk page is the last place you want to steer someone who is already upset. If my first introduction to Wikipedia's editing community was on the talk page of my own article when making a complaint, I'd assume Wikipedia was staffed by irate morons. Which it is, all too often.--Father Goose (talk) 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I concur. Sorry, I should have made myself more clear: for anything objectionable, go to Office/OTRS. I'd only use the talk page for non-BLP issues (ie, incorrect dates, or other errors that aren't really controversial in any way). But yeah, we would definitely want to avoid people thinking that the WMF staffed the talk pages. That could be....well, bad is a bit of an understatement. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Sjakkalle

Thanks to FT2, DGG, and others for insightful and valuable comments. The proposal was admittedly a bit radical in that it would allow certain people to have a page where they would be free to soapbox, and as with most radical proposals, there are real objections based on real concerns. The proposal by FT2 to amend BLP to include the subject's view as "significant" is modest, but good, as it will contribute to a more neutral biography, and I strongly support that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem

Since Google rates Wikipedia pages highly, we'd very likely end up looking at a situation where the soapboxing autobiographical BLP pages were very prominently displayed. This might not be a problem with normal LPs, but do we really want a situation where a LP decided to attack other LPs, or claim persecution by groups of LPs, or even Wikipedia editors? User:DanaUllman/Dana Ullman edits here, for instance, and has a tendency to attack the entire medical establishment and all who disagree with him. 86.147.79.77 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the search ranking; Wikipedia pages are often the #1 result. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Verification of identity

This proposal should include information on how the identity of an individual claiming to be a notable living person is verified. A malicious individual could pose as a celebrity, using an email address from an official-sounding website, in order to misrepresent and slander the real subject. Skomorokh 23:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Easy to do. We usually just ask them to send a confirmatory email from the email address listed on their official published website (or a phone call to the OFFICE, or other ways) saying "yes this is me". Most people have no trouble with good quality confirmation like this, and impersonation will be difficult. Since they are already asserting "I am X" and asking us to act because they are X, then an email from X's own published address to confirm it, is not a much of a problem for privacy issues. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Morgan Webb

I bet Morgan Webb would have some stuff to say about this. As she writes, she has found inaccuracies in her Wikipedia Bio and then she got reverted when she corrected them. Guroadrunner (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• More there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Morgan_Webb#Made_in_Canada

she claims she is not Canadian--some sources say she has dual citizenship, US and Canada. her opinion about where she is a citizen is hardly definitive. It's relevant though, and can be worded as her opinion.DGG (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've closed this, sorry. I'm no zealot when it comes to WP:POLLS, but one thing we definitely don't do is an up/down poll on whether something should become policy or be rejected. If it hasn't been accepted -- and this proposal hasn't -- then it is by default rejected. Just mark it as such. If further discussion and editing can change its state of approval, then let that continue. However, this proposal does seem moribund, and we don't need a poll to tell us that.--Father Goose (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to gauge whether or not there may be a consensus to implement this, please indicate your preference below by signing with ~~~~.

Yes, this proposal has merit

No, this proposal should be marked {{rejected}}

1. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.