An alternate draft is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/temp.

Biographies of living persons require a high degree of sensitivity and a strict adherence to our content policies, particularly Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Place yourself in the shoes of a person who wakes up one morning to find that someone has written a Wikipedia entry about him. He is more than marginally notable, but is not exceptionally famous. He learns that the page may be edited by anyone in the world, including entirely anonymous editors, and that it may be picked up by mirror sites and copied all over the Web. He tries to correct what he sees as mistakes or an unfair slant, but his edits are reverted, and he realizes he has no control over the article's contents. He continues to revert, but finds himself blocked for 3RR. He discovers there is no editor-in-chief he can easily appeal to, so he leaves a belligerent legal threat on the talk page, and is blocked indefinitely.

It's easy to imagine how shocking a situation this could be, especially for people who don't regard themselves as particularly notable, and who aren't used to being written about.

Editors should act with sensitivity, understanding, kindness, and respect in these cases. All Wikipedia articles must be written in accordance with our content policies, including neutral point-of-view and no original research, which jointly say that, if a fact or incident is notable and well-documented by reputable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and even if the subject dislikes all mention of it. At the same time, however, there should be no hint of a gung-ho, publish-and-be-damned attitude. As editors, our writing may have real effects on real lives, and with that power comes responsibility.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of caution in regards 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)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and Wikipedians are encyclopedists, not journalists. We don't have a team of fact-checkers, reporters, copy editors, and lawyers to call upon, as newspapers do.

The job of encyclopedists is to document what credible third-party sources have published about the subject, and in some limited circumstances, what the subject may have published about himself.

Biographies should be written in an encyclopedic tone. This does not mean that biographical articles have to be devoid of criticism; indeed, criticism by noted people and in the media should be discussed in the article. But there should be no sense of glee or excitement about negative material, no unencyclopedic tone, and no undue laboring of the criticism. The balance of positive to negative material in the text should reflect the balance generally found in the material published about that person by third-party credible sources; for example, in mainstream news coverage.

Generally, an individual is regarded as notable enough for a Wikipedia entry if there are credible, third-party, published sources available that supply enough information to make a Wikipedia entry feasible. Without credible third-party sources, the biography would be in violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

It is particularly important, when writing about living people, that the no original research and verifiability policies be adhered to. Because Wikipedia articles are picked up by mirror sites and copied, there is no guarantee that only "good" versions of articles will spread. It is possible for inaccurate claims about individuals to be spread quickly even if the Wikipedia article is subsequently corrected. This places an extra burden of responsibility on editors to ensure that our articles are never the source of false claims about living individuals.

Good sources will include books published by reputable (non-vanity) publishers; articles in peer-reviewed academic journals; articles in mainstream, reputable newspapers; and material published by well-known, reliable websites (but not personal websites: see below).

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with care, particularly if the material is detrimental to the subject. If the material is of importance and the subject is notable, a credible third-party source will have published it somewhere. If no credible source can be found, there may be a problem with the material. Wikipedia should not publish material where there is doubt as to the quality of its source.

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.

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. 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.

To add unpublished details to a biography is an example of original research. 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.

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?

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.

Most biographies of living persons concern subjects who are unquestionably notable and whose lives are the focus of mainstream press coverage. In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of credible, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say.

However, there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, may nevertheless feel that they are private individuals, and who may object to being on the receiving end of public attention. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and, in the case of a dispute, should err in favor of respecting the individual's privacy.

Two examples:

• A well-known married politician is alleged to have had an affair with his next-door neighbor. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there are rumors he may have to resign. In the case of a public figure like this, with multiple, credible, third-party sources available, the allegation belongs in the biography, so long as it's made clear it's an allegation and not established as fact, linking to the New York Times article as a source.

• A little-known married academic is alleged to have touched a student inappropriately during a party. She tells her story to the university's student newspaper, and it's picked up by a satirical magazine writing about sexual relations between academics and their students. No other newspaper repeats the claims, which the academic has not responded to. He has a brief Wikipedia entry because he once wrote a book about special relativity, and so the student's claim is added to his entry using the satirical magazine as a source. The academic contacts Wikipedia to ask that the claim be removed because it may destroy his marriage. In a case like this, we should act on the presumption that the academic has a right to maintain his privacy. The sources are not particularly credible, he is only marginally notable, no mainstream source has picked up the story, and his life may be seriously affected if the allegation is spread.

In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

Particular care should be taken not to place articles about living people in inappropriate categories. For example, only people convicted of a crime by a court of law should be added to Category:Criminals, and only those convicted of rape should be added to Category:Rapists. An accusation of rape, no matter how reputable the source or the accuser, is not sufficient to label someone a rapist by adding their biography to that category.

Editors should also check to ensure that convictions for offenses were not overturned on appeal. If they were, the entry in the corresponding category should be removed.

If there is any reasonable doubt as to whether a biography belongs in a particular category, it should be removed from the category pending further discussion, particularly if its inclusion is detrimental to the subject.

Blogs, personal websites, and other self-published materials are usually not regarded as credible third-party sources for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information.

Self-published material may sometimes be used with caution as a primary source: as a source of information about the author of the material. That is, John Doe's blog may be used as a source of information about himself so long as the Wikipedia biography doesn't turn into an extension of John Doe's personal website. Wikipedia is not a private press agency nor a blog. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Editors are advised to proceed with caution and skepticism when using a subject's personal website or blog as a source of information about that subject. Using self-published primary sources raises a number of difficulties:

• There is a danger that the Wikipedia biography page will become an extension of the blog. For example, John Doe's Wikipedia biography says he is 50 years old. He tries to correct this to 40, but his correction is reverted, because the published record says he is 50, and there is no publication saying otherwise. He therefore adds an entry to his own blog stating that he is in fact 40. This gives him a published source to cite, and allows him to add to his Wikipedia entry that, "according to John Doe's website, he is 40 years old." However, this sequence of events, even though it involves a form of publication on the blog, is in fact an example of original research, because it is the same as a Wikipedia editor telephoning John Doe and being told privately that the correct age is 40. For information to be "published," in the sense that matters to Wikipedia, there should ideally be some form of peer review, fact-checking, or third-party scrutiny, which all (non-vanity) publishing houses and newspapers perform to some degree, if only minimally. With self-publishing, whether in book or blog form, there is usually no critical third-party input. Using self-published material as a source is therefore akin to using a flyer that someone has written, copied, and stuck on a lamppost.

• A further danger is that using information published only on a personal website may lead to the biography being packed full of trivia. People find their own lives and opinions endlessly fascinating, and may write about them at great length. That doesn't mean the information is interesting enough for their Wikipedia entry. Just because someone is notable enough for an entry to exist, it does not follow that everything the subject thinks, says, or does is notable enough to be added to the biography.

• One individual with a Wikipedia entry is in the habit of issuing press releases on his personal website. This individual is marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry because he was briefly of interest to the media some years ago, but currently isn't. His press releases therefore go unheeded by journalists. Nevertheless, because they were published on his website, he and his supporters invariably try to have the contents of the press releases added to his Wikipedia entry, as in: "In a press release issued on December 18, 2005, John Doe denied that he is a follower of religion X, and reiterated his commitment to religion Y." This is an example of trying to turn Wikipedia into his personal press agency, or into an extension of his own website. If a press release is of any interest to the press, a newspaper will write about it, and then Wikipedia can use the newspaper as a source. Otherwise, the information has no place in the biography.

• There is a further danger that the personal website you believe belongs to John Doe was set up with malicious intent. This is often a danger with websites, but particularly so with personal websites and blogs. Do not use a personal website as a source if there is any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the author.

In very limited circumstances, editors may use blogs, personal websites, and self-published books as primary sources in a biography — that is, where the author of the blog is the subject of the biography — so long as:

• there is no reasonable doubt that the author of the personal website is the same person as the subject of the biography;
• there is no credible third-party published source of the material;
• the information provided by the personal website does not conflict with information published by another credible third-party source;
• the information is not contentious and has not been challenged by any other editor;
• the information is not regarded by any other editor as unduly self-serving (for example, an amateur actor claiming to have been offered a contract by a famous director, which mysteriously came to nothing);
• the material is notable, appropriate for a Wikipedia entry, and is not regarded by any other editor as trivial or an example of fancruft;
• the material does not involve claims about third parties or about events not directly related to the subject. For example, John Doe's entry on his blog that he had sex with famous actress Jane Doe would not be allowed in John Doe's biography (or anywhere else on Wikipedia), unless it was published by a credible third-party source.

A blog or personal website written by the subject — so long as there is no reasonable doubt that the subject is in fact the author of the website — may be listed in the further reading section, even if the website has been challenged as a reliable source of information on the subject.

The principles that apply to biographies also apply to the treatment of biographical information about living persons that may be inserted into other articles.

• Defamation: false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions.
• Libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person.

Potentially libellous or defamatory statements not sourced to highly credible and verifiable sources should be removed.

Criticism of a person is not libel or defamation. Making false accusations is. As editors cannot make value judgments in respect of the truth of falseness of a statement made against a person, providing highly credible and verifiable information is crucial in such cases.

Editors should be on the lookout for the malicious creation or editing of biographies or biographical information. The anonymous editor who keeps adding that John Doe was convicted of fraud in 1972 may be the ex-boss that John Doe is alleged to have defrauded. A rigorous adherence to the content policies, and care in selecting credible, third-party published sources, should neutralize any threat from editors who have strong personal or political feelings about the subjects of biographies.

Any Wikipedia editor who makes a legal threat on the website will be blocked from editing. This includes the subjects of biographies who object to their article's contents. Any legal concerns should be directed to the Wikimedia Foundation and not to individual editors. See Wikipedia:No legal threats.

If you are the subject of a biography and you have a legal concern, or you're an editor who has received a legal threat from a subject, correspondence should be sent to:

board@wikimedia.org
info-en@wikipedia.org (English-language Wikipedia)
danny@wikia.com

Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
200 2nd Ave. South #358
St. Petersburg, Florida, United States 33701-4313
Phone: +1-727-231-0101

Contact data

If an editor receives a legal threat, the Wikimedia Foundation requests that you do not answer it, but forward it without delay to one of the above.

Relevant policies:

• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:No original research
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
• Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks
• Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
• Wikipedia:Libel
• Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies
• Wikipedia:Privacy policy
• Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy

Relevant guidelines:

• Wikipedia:Notability (people)
• Wikipedia:Autobiography.

Articles:

• John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy
• Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer)

• Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees