First, I have actually learned something from being here. I am looking for a critique of this general idea, regardless of said probability or possibility.

Here is what I am most comfortable with:

BLP: ANY living person, regardless of inclusion 'guidelines' should have the right to have their own article deleted upon request.

Why?

Ok, here's the thing. I don't even like the Deadtree proposition because it merits the Godwin-like discussion of Bill Clinton. The consensus is that we can't delete his article because he is notable. Yes, he is obviously notable. But who fucking cares? Here are the flaws:

1. Wikipedia cannot ever be reliable because anyone can edit it. (I have said before only an idiot would use the free medical clinic, where anyone can practice.)

2. Wikipedia is no more official than any shitty porn site. Meaning, we don't have an obligation to 'free all knowledge' because we are JUST a wiki - nothing more. The fact that we are an encyclopedia-based wiki does not alleviate the fact that we still have no authority.

3. Wikipedia is usually a topsite when ANY search is done. When I merit 'inclusion,' and my distant relatives decide to look me up, I don't want them to see that exact moment when a 13 year old turned me into a pedophile-loving terrorist.

4. There is nothing official about us. When I have more edits than the creator, there is a problem. It is tantamount to unleashing a beast. Policy can always change AND more importantly, unlike official sites, WP does not need exist. Therefore, WP does not need to include every one of decided notability.

5. At any moment a living person can be hurt. The debate now is that amending the BLP allows Bill Clinton to have his own article deleted. But I'm looking at it differently: if we on WP just included certain facts about his sexual scandals, EVEN THOUGH they are all facts, it skews the article. It makes him a womanizer, and not a President.

Any and all thoughts are appreciated, but please refrain from the attacks or the threats of outing me - this is when I really hope all members on WR stay on topic.

That depends how much other info there is in the article about what he did as President. He can have 'got off' with people and still be a President.

If WP is going to remove factual but unfavourable info from articles, it might as well be the (even more than it arguably is at the moment) Censored wikipedia that anyone can edit, but uncomfortable facts even if they've been in reliable sources, will be removed.

I think we can include some "negative" info, otherwise it would be the "puff piece" encyclopedia. Even in published biographies of Clinton, some mention of these affairs would be included, I imagine.

I never said negative information should not be included. It would make a shitty Dahmer article. My point is that facts, steadfast facts, can still be used to skew an article.

I think that this is basically correct.

Wikipediots are making improper use of other people's names and notoriety to advertise their Internet Graffiti Site. I am surprised that more persons of note who maintain proprietary rights over the use of their names have not sued on this basis.

All in good time.

Jon

Dood, while I appreciate the endorsement, the 'Wikipediots' sentiment is what I would like to avoid. I cannot have an open dialogue here when derogatory terms are thrown out as if they were euphemistic. I'm trying to open a line of communication, but I was explicit about the terms.

Maybe because they'd lose, as well as getting bad P.R. out of the whole thing? It's well established in law that names, even ones that are registered trademarks or otherwise proprietary, are subject to fair use for journalistic, encyclopedic, or commentary purposes. See for instance the New Kids on the Block case (around 1990) where USA Today was sued for infringing the rights of the then-popular teen pop group when they published an article including such things as a fan survey and contest, displaying the group name (and maybe their logo) alongside it. This was ruled to be journalistic fair use even though it had a commercial purpose and went rather beyond normal newspaper coverage to include attempts to involve the group's fans in recreational activity. (On the other hand, the later Seinfeld Aptitude Test case ruled against a book publisher publishing a trivia quiz about the TV show Seinfeld that included extensive description of plots and characters from that show, and a current case regarding the Harry Potter Lexicon might go against that fan publisher, so there are limits... these cases, however, involved alleged copyright infringement coming from excessive use of description of fictional "events", though claims of trademark violation were also made.) The encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, along with its nonprofit status, would be likely to give it an extremely wide berth for fair use of names and likenesses in the course of discussing them.

Various Internet nutballs have, from time to time, rattled sabres by claiming their personal name is trademarked (or copyrighted or patented... those guys don't always even cite the correct intellectual property category) and demanding that web forums, newsgroups, blogs, etc., remove all references to them. They generally don't get anywhere on this other than to be soundly ridiculed (increasing the occurrences of their name online).

Stop calling me "Dood", which everbuddy knows is short for "Doody".

Jon

Which was of course their plan all along …

Jon

'Dood' is just OC talk for dude. There was no malfeasance implied, dood.

Deal, dood.

Is the word "malfeasance" a meme at the moment? I saw the word for the first time, on a WP article yesterday, and now here it is again today. Oh it was on the craigslist ad controversy article, which I think Rose linked to on here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=209972184 . So someone else spotted it lol? It seemed like a word that might be used by an impecunious admin.

I don't understand what you are trying to say about Bill Clinton.

All you need to do is allow people to OPT-OUT if they haven't been covered by other mainstream encyclopedia sources. Meaning that the Biography that appears in Wikipedia is the only biography of its kind available and is a WP:ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHY.

Very few people will take up this offer, but it is an important step nonetheless. There is no need to make this any more complicated than is necessary.

Apparently, da doody do abide —

But I'm glad to hear you mean no malfeces …

Jon

Undertow, well done for putting that together.

I think the above is a really important point to pick up. It is this that makes Wikipedia dangerous. It's editors do not understand this, and assume that they have worked some magic that means that after a certain amount of time, the articles on any given topic must be definitive, and therefore there must be something immoral in trying to censor this information.

I think if there was an editorial board who signed off, either in signed off revisions or frozen articles, then they would have a tenable position. "We said so" is not a credible legal position to take on an article on a living person, especially where we see edits skewed towards sensationalist, event led, material.

I apologize for not being succinct. And Awbrey, I love you. Here's my go at it:

Changing BLP is considered a slippery slope to some. They opined that if Bill Clinton himself wanted the article deleted, we simply cannot. I was using an argument that is actually in progress on BLP discussion.

HOWEVER, after seeing this site, and absorbing some information, my point was actually that if Bill called, we SHOULD delete his article. If there was a MySpace user that was purporting to be Bill Clinton, it would be deleted for libel. So, even as I am an an admin on WP, I think that all living people should have the right to have their article deleted, because we are just as reliable as MySpace. I'm sorry for the confusion. Even IF you are in Britannica, I think you should be able to get out of WP. I want to take it further than deadtree policy. After all, one of the key points of WP is that WP:Not Britannica. So if we are not, let's not pretend we are. We are just a wiki, and nothing more.

That's humorous, but if you read a book instead of being such a sell-out you might realize that some of us have an higher vocabulary. Besides, I got the word from "The Office."

Scooping up little bits of doody in the Wiki-Litter is all well and good, but it will never clean up the mess that Jimbo the Wiki-Pachyderm dumped in our Living Room.

Once you accept the premiss that Wikipediots have a legitimate claim to call their product an encyclopedia, then all is lost. Wikipedia can never be anything like a valid encyclopedia — because Wikipediots and their Handlers will never accept so much as the bare minimal responsibility that it takes to sign their real names as a matter of editorial policy.

QED.

As long as Wikipediots and their Handlers claim the full legal protections afforded to Chat Rheums and other Forums Of Free Speech (FOFS), they will never have a legitimate claim to call themselves anything more than that.

And the more that people start to examine their illegitimate claims, the more that people will start to realize how illegitimate they are.

Jon

I agree completely that it would be better to have a no-questions-asked opt-out policy for everybody, but IMO the problem is that this will always be seen as too radical by most WP types, and the so-called "extremism" of radical proposals tends to be used as a means of dismissing all less-radical proposals right along with 'em. You pretty much have to allow for a means of ensuring that they can "safely" write articles about Bill Clinton, not that Clinton would actually choose to opt out (think of the media coverage!)...

Wait a minute, you said "regardless of said probability or possibility," didn't you? Sorry, I've got to read these things more carefully.

Sooooo, just to address some specifics here, if someone is the subject of a published biography on library and bookstore shelves, the Wikipedia "version" will nearly always be perceived as inferior in terms of accuracy, even if it's superior in terms of being more up-to-date over time. But the fact of its perceived inferiority will at least give WP'ers a pride-incentive to keep the quality level as high as possible - not least because such people are usually much more high-profile anyway...

What's more, at least the Wikipedia version gives an under-attack BLP subject (and his/her supporters) some means of responding or influencing the content. That's actually a good thing from their perspective, and it's one of several reasons why there won't really be that many people actually taking advantage of the opt-out policy.

The opt-out idea is meant specifically to protect people who have been directly targeted by established Wikipedia attack editors, and for whom WP cannot produce an unbiased article not tainted by undue emphasis or single-incident focusing. It's perfectly natural that there would be significant resistance to such an idea, because the number of such editors is so high. For these people, WP policy is just another weapon.

It will also help us here at WR, of course, because right now we spend so much time and effort dealing with individual BLP-related issues that we end up not looking at the big picture enough. Maybe Jimbo and the WP folks prefer it that way, though - I've often suspected that, actually.

I guess what I'm saying is, your heart's in the right place, but overly radical proposals - no matter how much better they look on the surface - don't make the task any easier, I'm sorry to say.

This OPT-OUT / Dead Tree policy would be accompanied by DocGlasgow's Default Deletion policy. If a BLP is nominated for deletion and there is no consensus to keep the article, it is deleted.

The third necessary policy is to give all BLP subjects the same "privilege" Jimbo Wales enjoys, by Semi-Protecting their biographies. People who don't believe that drive-by edits are a serious problem are not looking at it as closely as me. They create a layer of crud and problems, a proportion of which seep into the article causing many of the most sinister BLP violations. That is a fact.

It also occurs to me that if the editors are discussing what does or doesn't belong in a subject's biography, the subject (or their designated agent) should at least be afforded the courtesy of responding on the talk page for the biography.

At any rate, it's a Waste Of Time (WOT) talking about it, since none of this will happen.

The reason that it won't happen is that it will take all the fun out of Some People's "Hobbies", and that will take all the funds out of Jimbo's Wiki-Pocketsesss …

Jon

Maybe Bill Clinton couldn't opt out, but there are plenty of notable people who might want to, such as Michael Barrymore or one or two relatives of the Queen.

You touch on one part of the problem here, I think. It used to be just a wiki when it was a little known and little used start up site that people just kind of thought was "neat". That all changed when it got some publicity and high google results.

I find that the people that spend the most time on Wikipedia are the ones that keep pushing the meme that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (rather than anything else besides and encyclopedia). I feel that they do this because they need to justify in their minds how much time they spend working on it.

However, right now, Wikipedia is not "just a wiki lol". It's pretty srz bizness actually, but a handful of "dedicated" and immature users do not realize the power they wield. Somey said the other day that if WP would fix the BLP policies we probably wouldn't exist here at WR anymore...That is probably true, but another way to look at it is we would not exist here if WP did not have the google rankings it does. If WP did not have the google rankings, then Wikipedians (the few of them that would be there) would probably be left to play whatever game they wanted, unmolested.

So those that oppose BLP reform and those the urge BLP reform can all blame Google for the resulting stress, I guess!

These were along the same lines as my ideas in a discussion I had last week when trying to gauge what kind of support I could look forward to from those in my circle of friends on WP. I disagree with the_undertow's suggestion to allow anyone to OPT-OUT. I believe if they have bios and encyclopedic entries already available, Wikipedia should have an article on them. However, I agree with Kato that all BLPs should enjoy semi-protection. A couple of weeks ago, my state Senator was dead for a few hours until the_undertow caught it and reverted. That's stupid. Considering the real world impact our entries can have on people, it should be a top priority to avoid BLP violations, even if doing so goes against the spirit of wiki.

Good succinct posts, and I don't have much to add on the specifics - some combination of opt-out/dead-tree/semi-protection seems such a sensible way of dealing with WP's pain on this issue, you'd almost think adoption was inevitable.

But then, we're talking about wikipedia, where the definition of "sensible" isn't always obvious. So the thing for me is - where is the impetus coming from to transform this thinking into practice? Do you think wikipedia can get there without more external pressure?

That is a necessity. Since I have not been involved in policy debate before, are there instances where individuals or there agents were explicitly disallowed this option?



I don't think that the change will come without external pressure. People on the outside just see WP as what always comes up when they do their search. It would take serious exposure for the public to see how WP can essentially force an article down the subject's throat. I could write The Dummies Guide to WP, but just like Sinclair's The Jungle, the inner workings of WP might make people sick. I dunno...maybe people need to be sick over this. I know I've gotten to that point many times.

Any individual who has already been banned or is currently blocked during the duration of the debate is disallowed this option.

Ya think?

just for the information of folks interested really - I thought I'd let you know where I'm currently trying to encourage reform over wiki's biography coverage;

a 'request for comments' on the talk page of the 'opt-out' proposal (which allows for non-public figures to have their biographies deleted upon request) - and I also started what I called a 'noticeboard' - but perhaps could work better as a 'petition'.

I clearly haven't positioned it in the best spot though - 'cos it's currently up for deletion - hopefully it'll find a good home before too long - I like the idea of having a simple place 'on-wiki' for users to show their support (or opposition) for some sort of 'opt-out' proposal, and that's what this is intended to be....

Let me suggest that you cease corrupting the concept of a wiki, not to mention defaming its orginators, by using the generic term "wiki" to describe the degenerate case of Wikipedia.

Jon

I don't understand why you guys propose an extreme universal OPT-OUT, rather than the moderate WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES / WP:DEAD TREE proposals discussed at length here?

DocG and The Undertow are also pushing an extreme rejection of BLPs, countered by opposing Wikipedians pushing their extreme inclusionism.

The moderate proposal seems more sensible at this stage. As it removes some of the most notorious cases. WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES / WP:DEAD TREE should be implemented as a moderate compromise.

I don't consider my musings to be 'pushing' anything at this point. I already realize that I have an extreme view of the opt-out, but without 2 extremes, there is no middle ground. I think in order for a compromise to be made, both sides have to be clear about what they find ideal, and what they can live with.

Related thoughts.

Mostly agree with Kato here. I don’t think letting Clinton opt out, but anyone who hasn’t appeared in a biography/encyclopedia before should be able to. That would apply to most BLPs…but there would still be those that aren’t super-major, but have had biographies written about them. [[Silverchair]] to take a random example. In that cases, it’s up to editors to try and do a decent job of them…but in the majority of cases, we should be letting people opt out of their first biography.

With less BLPs to worry about, we can work on improving the other articles, and improving Wikipedia’s rep for reliability, until ( ) people are willing to trust WP with their BLPs (and hopefully at that stage, WP will be able and willing to take them, without the weekly epic dramaz).

But how many people are seriously going to opt-out? Not many methinks. I've only heard of a handful of cases of people insisting they not be featured. Most people complaining about their bios are complaining about specific details, but not questioning the legitimacy of the bio itself.

Yet giving those handful of persecuted souls, those whose WP bio is the first attempt to publicly catelogue their lives in an encyclopedia context, an opt-out on request, solves so many problems.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that approach, but it only works in the real world. On Wikipedia, it's merely a recipe for making strawmen.

I have to agree with Kato (as I often do): A year ago, I wouldn't have been able to even conceive of the idea that I'd be on the more "moderate" side of this issue, asking long-term WP admins and even bureaucrats and stewards to actually consider less radical approaches to the problem than I would have thought necessary, just to reassure the other side that we're not trying to "delete half the database." I suspect it's a good indication of just how extensive and troublesome the problem has become, and of how many people are getting burned out on it - including myself, to be honest.

I'm sure it seems like we're promoting this idea as almost a panacea, one that will solve the whole BLP problem in a neat little package. It isn't really a panacea, but in almost any business, you've got to deal with the 80-20 rule. In the case of BLP's, it's probably more like the "98-2 rule," but when you're spread as thin as WP's admin group is, it really doesn't take much to bring productivity to a near-standstill.... Easy ways to reduce obvious risk factors are not always easy to come by, either. Most people take 'em wherever they can get 'em.

This is where slippery-slope fears come into play - opt-out gives aggrieved parties an alternative to being tortured by wikipedia's bizarre "processes", and those who just love the process will be reluctant to provide an escape route.

Run the gauntlet of abusive sarcasts to get your BLP amended = hard.
Ask for it to be deleted, and it's just deleted = easy.

Without meaningful change in wikipedia's practices, aimed at preventing rather than reacting to abuse and inaccuracy, I'd expect the number of opt-out candidates to grow.

Although the subjects of several problematic biographies didn't expressly appoint me as their agents, I did become such an agent who was summarily debarred from responding to editors' questions, musings, and speculations posed in a recent case where there was more heat than light regarding the subject's views on controversial questions. It's frustrating to observe people struggling to find a piece of information, and being prohibited from supplying it to ease their uncertainty.

I thought there was a telling exchange that I had with a young editor (I think from his page he is a new student of around 18 years old or so, with a predilection for computer gaming). He tells me that "Wikipedia is not MySpace" because it is not policy, though he tells someone else it is a MMO. and denies it is a networking site, because that is against policy, but never knew about meetups - doesn't approve of that nonsense and what could go wrong there? He then goes on to say:

So BLP is not really a Wikipedia problem because it is the editors fault, not the policy. The glimmer of understanding of what is Jon's lot slowly dawns as you realise every year you have to retrain a few thousand innocent young idealists who think that the world is a simple place and a few rules will sort everything out.

He is studying computing... "Hey, it's not my program that is at fault for blowing up, you must be using it wrong."

In a question on adherence to normative journalistic standards, Associated Press writer, Brian Bergstein, said, "Every day things get written on Wikipedia that would get me fired." But Bergstein also acknowledged that there are good editors on Wikipedia "who take evidence extremely seriously" when determining what is appropriate to publish.

The problem with that editor's opinion is that it is based on two incorrect assumptions:

1. N, NPOV, RS and V would have to be perfect policies. and
2. N, NPOV, RS and V, as a sum total, done correctly, would somehow rectify BLPs, therefore making a BLP policy a moot point.

Neither of these is even close, but it's an excellent way to pass the buck. Throwing uppercase letters at problems is so ten minutes ago.

So, if I want to write a smear piece, I should kill them first so it can't be deleted? </sarcasm>

Objections to the original post:

-Imagine all of our articles on the Bush administration being deleted with the help of an out-going white house intern. Imagine not having an article on Steven Spielberg because his PR company demanded ALL articles on their clients be deleted, solely because it's a prominent source of information they can't completely control.

-Collateral damage. Does 'BLP deletion' mean ALL mentions of them and any biographical data must be purged from Wikipedia? If John Hinckley demanded his article be deleted, does that mean we couldn't mention him in Jodie Foster's article? Keep in mind that for less notable people a few mentions in any article can be sufficient to keep Wikipedia at the top of the Google search results.

-It will make people more tolerant of bad articles. After all, if it was libelous, the subject would just have it deleted.

-What happens when the subject dies? Do they instantly become fair game, regardless of their wishes in life?

-How is the subject supposed to prove they actually are the subject, short of coughing up their social security number or giving a shout-out at the VMAs? Can I get any BLP deleted if I just have a <name>@gmail.com address and claim I'm the subject?

Wikipedia is a Chat Room whose Chatters keep Chat Files on stuff.

We probably can't stop the Chatters of the Wikipedia Chat Room from keeping Chat Files on a whole lotta stuff, so long as the Chatters of the Wikipedia Chat Room plead The Right Of Free Speech (TROFS).

(Never mind that Pleading TROFS contradicts what some of the Chatters have put in the Chat File they call "WPISNOT" — after all, there is nothing that says that any of the Chatters in any Chat Room have to obey any of the stuff that any of the Chatters put in any of the Chat Files.)

However, there is a Slim Chance of keeping the Chatters from keeping Chat Files on Living People, at least, in such a way that their Chatter shows up at the top of Internet Search Engine Yields (ISEYs).

So we're working on that for the moment.

I hope that clears up some of the Chatter.

Jon

Imagine if the Wikimedia Foundation declared that it was a publisher, rather than an interactive computer service? Then they could have as many articles about BLPs as they wanted, regardless of what the subjects asked for, short of a lawsuit.

Why doesn't the WMF do that?

I'm imagining it.

In my imaginary vision, different sites come up on my web search. Many of them are written by experienced people with a professional imperative to get facts right, and I get the information I want or need. No apocalypse, world shrugs and keeps turning. Wikia/wikipedia gets a little less traffic to monetise and put towards a Jimbo jet.

Toss not given.

What, really dies or has their death announced on WP?

Is it really a WP:COI to revert your own death notice?

First, I really don't care if ALL BLPs are deleted from Wikipedia. There's no rule they have to be here. Again, I don't feel anything official about WP.

Second, no - I would not rid WP of all mentions of living people. It's hard to have events without people.



Third - you refer to dead people as 'fair game.' This is a troubling sentiment. 'Researchers' are becoming increasingly obsessed with proving that all dead men were gay or that all dead artists/musicians had the latest psychiatric buzz-condition. Sure, if someone dies, extend their wishes. Better yet, take whatever 'care' is given to the BLP issue and roll it into Biographies of People.


If a subject is actually at the VMAs, they probably deserve to have their article deleted anyway. And you cannot be implying that we, as humans, have no way to identify ourselves? If this was true, I'm screwed when it comes to picking up my dry cleaning today.

I don't know what your point is. Is this a lead up to a complaint about section 230?
---

What experienced people were you imagining writing this information for free? Perhaps ex-New Yorker writers?
---

If you feel nothing, go away.

Now you want to expand BLP to dead people? I'd love to slide down your slope, but I lost my sled.

You're the one that started referring to an article on Wikipedia as an utterly abhorrent thing. Or does "It is tantamount to unleashing a beast." not ring any bells? I'm merely following your lead.

Let's imagine Ted Quinlan wants his article deleted. He doesn't have an official website. He doesn't make media appearances. There are no videos of him on the internet to use as a reference. How would you propose he prove to OTRS that he is Ted Quinlan?

Good grief are you living in Space? How the hell else do people prove their identity on our planet? How do you think Citizendium manages?

And besides, this guy is a politician. His article should be automatically semi-protected, but his OPT-OUT would be under the consideration of the parameters outlined by WP:NO ORIGINAL BIOGRAPHIES / WP:DEAD TREE. Which would not necessarily guarantee an OPT-OUT. That is if Wikipedia had any sense and adopted this damn obvious and urgent policy.

This is liking talking to a girlfriend or something. If I felt nothing, I would leave. However, I feel a bit of loathing at this point, and I believe I can have an impact, given my experience at WP. I cannot have the same impact if I simply leave.



Calling everything a slippery-slope, a strawman, and throwing uppercase letters at situations doesn't hold any weight because there is nothing behind this kneejerk reaction that so many editors fall victim to.



Did you seriously tell me a politician has no way to identify himself? Tell me, did Ted have a problem running for office without a website? Do his voters feel comfortable that they, in fact, voted for the right Ted Quinlan?

LOOK OUT! A QUESTION IS COMING RIGHT FOR US! DUCK AND COVER! DUCK AND COVER!