ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ:Biographies of living persons

ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಇಂದ
ಇಲ್ಲಿಗೆ ಹೋಗು: ಸಂಚರಣೆ, ಹುಡುಕು

ಸಂಪಾದಕರು ಬದುಕಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಜೀವನಚರಿತ್ರೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಪುಟಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿಸುವಾಗ ವಿಶೇಷ ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆ ವಹಿಸ ಬೇಕು. ಅಂತಹ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗೆ ಒಂದು ಮಟ್ಟದ ಸೂಕ್ಷ್ಮತೆಯ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ತುಂಬುವ ನೀತಿಗಳಿಗೆ "ಕಟ್ಟುನಿಟ್ಟಾಗಿ" ಅನುಸರಿಸ ಬೇಕು.

ನಮ್ಮ ಲೇಖನ "ಸರಿ" ಇರಬೇಕು.[೧] ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಗುಣಮಟ್ಟದ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಧಿಸಲು, ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಜೀವನದ ವಿವರಗಳ ಬಗೆಗೆ, ಅತ್ಯಂತ ದೃಡತೆ ಅಗತ್ಯ. ಉಲ್ಲೇಖಗಳಿಲ್ಲದ ಅಥವಾ ತೀರ ಅಲ್ಪ ಆಕರಗಳಿರುವ ಬದುಕಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಬಗೆಗಿನ ವಿವಾದಾಸ್ಪದ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯ ಲೇಖನ,[೨] ಚರ್ಚೆಯ ಪುಟ, ಬಳಕೆದಾರರ ಪುಟ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರಾಜೆಕ್ಟ್ ಸ್ಥಳದಿಂದ — ಅವು ಇತ್ಯಾತ್ಮಕವಿರಲಿ, ನೇತ್ಯಾತ್ಮಕವಿರಲಿ ಅಥವಾ ತೀರಾ ಆಕ್ಷೇಪಾರ್ಹವಿರಲಿ — ತಕ್ಷಣವೇ ಮತ್ತು ಯಾವುದೇ ಚರ್ಚೆ ಇಲ್ಲದೇ ತೆಗೆದುಹಾಕಬೇಕು.

ಈ ನೀತಿಯು ಬದುಕಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಜೀವನಚರಿತ್ರೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ಲೇಖನಗಳಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜೀವನಚರಿತ್ರೆಯ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಳೆರಡಕ್ಕೂ ಸಮಾನವಾಗಿ ಅನ್ವಯಿಸುತ್ತದೆ. ವಿಕಿಪೀಡಿಯದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಂಪಾದನೆಯ ಬಗೆಗಿನ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗಳ ಹೊರೆ, ಆದರೆ ವಿಶೇಷವಾಗಿ ಜೀವಂತ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಬಗೆಗಿನ ಸಂಪಾದನೆಯ ಹೊರೆ, ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸುವ ಅಥವಾ ನವೀಕರಿಸುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ ಹೆಗಲ ಮೇಲೆ ಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.

ಸಂಪಾದಕರಾಗಿ ಅಥವಾ ಗುರಿಯಾದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯಾಗಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಪುಟದಲ್ಲಿನ ಬದುಕಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯ ಜೀವನಚರಿತ್ರೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿಯ ಬಗೆಗೆ ನಿಮಗೆ ಕಳವಳವಿದ್ದರೆ ದಯವಿಟ್ಟು ನಮ್ಮನ್ನು (ಬವ್ಯಬನೀ) ನೋಟಿಸ್‌ ಬೋರ್ಡ್ (ಬದುಕಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ಬಗೆಗಿನ ನೀತಿ) ಹಾಕಿ ಎಚ್ಛರಿಸಿ.

Rationale[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Wikipedia articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Wikipedia is a top-ten website, and with such prominence comes a measure of responsibility. Wikipedia is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding.

The Foundation and Jimbo Wales get well-founded complaints about biographical content on living people every day — people justifiably upset at inaccurate or distorted articles. The successful resolution of such complaints is a touchy matter.

The problem can be compounded if the subject tries to edit their own article to remove problematic content. Since they are likely not regular Wikipedians, they will be unaware of our policies, and will often be accused of vandalism or revert warring when they are in fact trying to edit in good faith.

Accordingly, editors must take particular care with writing and editing biographies of living persons, and biographical material anywhere on Wikipedia, with the following practice in mind:

  • The article itself must be edited with a degree of sensitivity and strict adherence to our content policies;
  • If the subject edits the article, it is important to assume good faith and deal with them politely (see Wikipedia:Autobiography for content decisions in this regard);
  • If an anon IP address or a new account turns up to blank a page about a living person, or a section of it, it may well be the subject. Try not to act aggressively, but instead engage the person in dialogue, and check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced criticism. If it does, delete that portion.

Writing style[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material).

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

Sources[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Reliable sources[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Material available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Material found in self-published books, zines, websites and blogs should never be used, unless written or published by the subject (see below). These sources should also not be included as external links in BLPs, subject to the same exception.

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no NPOV version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Jimmy Wales has said it is sometimes better to have nothing at all than to include speculation, and has emphasized the need for sensitivity:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.[೨]

Using the subject as a self-published source[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Self-published material may never be used in BLPs unless written by the subject him or herself. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

  • it is relevant to the subject's notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; and
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources like any other, because they are not self-published.

A blog or personal website self-published by the subject may be listed in the external links/further reading section if not used as a source in the article.

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email.

While Wikipedia discourages people from writing new articles about themselves or expanding existing ones significantly, subjects of articles remain welcome to remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.

Jimmy Wales warns other editors to think twice when encountering such attempts:

"...reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do."[೩]

Anonymous edits that blank all or part of a biography of a living person should be evaluated carefully. When the individual involved is not especially notable, such edits should usually not be regarded as vandalism, but as an effort to remove biased or inaccurate material. RC patrollers and others who become involved should be careful to ensure they know who they are dealing with in such cases. The use of inflammatory edit summaries or vandalism-related talk-page templates should be avoided.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies, especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors:

For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.

— Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)[೪]

Presumption in favor of privacy[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.

In case of doubt, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. When writing about a person who is only notable for one or two events, including every detail, no matter how well-sourced, can lead to problems. In the best case, this can simply lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, this can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

— Jimbo Wales [೫]


Well known public figures[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out.
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

Material from primary sources should be used with great care. For example, public records that include personal details such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses, as well as trial transcripts and other court records, should not be used unless cited by a reliable secondary source. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

People who are relatively unknown[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

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. Primary source material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source).

Articles about living people notable only for one event[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a redirect is usually the better option. Cover the event, not the person. Editors should consider whether the names of private individuals could be redacted from articles without the loss of significant information. Evaluate on a case by case basis; and be willing to discuss any removals on the talk page.

Privacy of birthdays[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Wikipedia includes exact birth-dates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact dates of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

Criticism[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association.

Biased or malicious content[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons in biographies and elsewhere. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.


Use of categories[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.

For example, Category:Criminals should only be added if the incident is relevant to the person's notability; it has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met:

  • The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question;
  • The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation. See Invasion of privacy#False light.

Trivia sections[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections. Relevant sourced claims should be woven into the article. Eventualism is deprecated on BLP articles.

Preventing BLP violations[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Semi-protection and protection[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Admins who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that this policy may otherwise be violated, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material.

BLP deletion standards[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

When closing AfDs about semi-notable BLPs, the closing admin should take into account whether the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. There is no consensus as to the weight that should be placed on the subject's wishes, so this is left to the discretion of the closing admin. When a BLP is deleted, moving data to another article should be given serious consideration, but bear in mind that this policy applies to all pages of Wikipedia; material should never be moved from a deleted BLP as a way of thwarting the point of the page deletion. Also, if content from a BLP is to be merged, the edit history should be preserved due to the GFDL.

Disputed deletions[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

If a page is deleted citing this policy, adminstrators should not undelete it without discussing the issue in detail with the deleting administrator if possible. The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the deletion to other administrators, by e-mail if the material is sensitive; administrators who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Where appropriate, disputes can be taken to Deletion review, but any protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative.

Courtesy blanking AfDs after deletion[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked, or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.[೬] After deletion of a BLP, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.

Blocking[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

Templates[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry.[೭] {{Blp}} may be added to the talk pages of articles with living persons mentioned in the article. It also may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this policy. Alternatively, if a {{WPBiography}} template is present, you can add living=yes to the template parameters.

For problems with people violating BLP, you can use these templates:

{{BLPC}} may be used on pages needing attention.

Dealing with articles about yourself[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

If you have a query about or problem with an article about yourself, you can contact Wikipedia via email. Alternatively, please refer the editors on the page to this policy. If you need help enforcing the policy, alert us on the BLP noticeboard, or contact an administrator. See Wikipedia:List of administrators.

Designated agent[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

The designated agent for Wikipedia is:

Jimmy Wales, Designated Agent
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
146 2nd St N, # 310
St. Petersburg FL 33701
United States
Facsimile number: +1(727)258-0207

E-mails may also be sent to: info-en "at" wikipedia.org (replace the "at" with @)

More contact data


See also[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Relevant policies
Relevant guidelines

Notes[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

  1. Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
  2. ೨.೦ ೨.೧ Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006
  3. Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
  4. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy: "3) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake. Passed 6-0-1"
  5. Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006
  6. "...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden: "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article"

Further reading[ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿ]

Wikiquote
ವಿಕಿಕೋಟ್ ತಾಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ವಿಷಯಕ್ಕೆ ಸಂಭಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ನುಡಿಗಳು ಇವೆ: