Wikidata talk:Autobiography

ChristianKl's thoughts

• Sometimes there might be wrong claims in an item about a person where the person doesn't want to draw public attention to them. Given that our policy for living people recommends that people contact privacy@wikidata.org in those issues, I think this policy should also mention that possibility in addition to raising the issue in the project chat.
• I would prefer to have the section Your biography before Wikimedia Foundation policies. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I have included your concerns in the document.--Micru (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I object to the re-ordering of the sections. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I find more relevant for the user to know what they can do. What are your objections?--Micru (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I find more relevant for the user to know WMF policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:10, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

This page is about "autobiography", which means that the user is likely interested in editing or creating their own item. The lede raises expectations in that regard, so in my opinion the page should address first the user expectations. The section of WMF policy does not address the topic of autobiography, because the WMF has never made an statement about autobiographies. That is my reasoning to consider that the section "Your biography" should go first. What is your reasoning to believe that WMF policy section should go first?--Micru (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning in my previous post in this section. Your argument is why the original opening text:
"If you meet our notability requirements, then there could be a Wikidata item about you.
This page has information on what to expect if there is an item about you (or someone you represent), how to raise any concerns you may have, and how you can help to improve it. We also have a proposed policy on how we should manage items about living people."
should be restored. However, if your objection is to the page's name, propose a new one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You didn't explain why you find more relevant for the user to know WMF policy. Care to explain?--Micru (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Jarekt's take

I like this page, but I think it could use some clean up of wording that preserve all the major points. Other comments:

• I find introduction, too wordy
• In the Wikidata:Autobiography#Your_biography I would single out references which point to pages created by the subject. A linkedin page or other autobiographical pages on the web are not considered reliable sources.
• I also see what I think is abuse of Wikidata:Notability criteria #3 ("It fulfills some structural need, for example: it is needed to make statements made in other items more useful.") when people add statements to existing borderline-notable institutions, mentioning their roles and claiming "structural need". May be we should discourage "Autobiography" creation based on "structural need".
• Some projects like Commons allow page creation if person is notable enough to have a page or item on other project. That can lead to circular dependency, where page is notable on Wikidata because it has sitelink to Commons, and is notable on Commons because it has an item on Wikidata.

--Jarekt (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: here there are my comments:

• I agree about the introduction being too wordy, I have simplified it.
• As others have pointed out, sometimes the only reliable source is self-disclosed information. There is no reason not to extend AGF to people saying things about themselves. Besides the information usable here on Wikidata is by nature more neutral than in the Wikipedias.
• The clarification of the 3rd notability criteria should go to WD:N
• I do not know if we had many cases of circular dependency. If you find some, please report them so we can assess if it is necessary to do something about it.

--Micru (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Micru,

• About self-disclosed info: I am OK with it, if most info is from other sources and some clarification, or correction ( no I was not born on March 5 but on May 4th) come from the subject, but I have a issue if the only source is self-disclosed.
• WD:N -> Wikidata:Notability and that page do not say anything about autobiographies, so I am confused. What I observed is that Wikipedians are most prone to create autobiographies on Wikidata and they often justify them as "structural need" by adding them to properties of existing items related to Wikipedias and various projects.

--Jarekt (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Jarekt,

• Which issue do you have with self-disclosed sources?
• No, it doesn't say anything about autobiographies, and that is what I was trying to say, that we should add something about it on the "structural need" criterion. I have started a discussion there.

--Micru (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Micru The issue I have is when an item or an article does not have any non-autobiographical sources, but I am less concerned when there is a mix of autobiographical and non-autobiographical sources. A autobiographical sources for date and place of birth or marital status is OK, but for a moonwalk I will need additional sources. I guess what we are trying to prevent is for totally made up personality to be created. --Jarekt (talk) 04:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Jarekt, using common sense should be enough to detect totally made up personalities. The life of a person does not exist in a vacuum, and there are many traces left in records, organizations, reports, etc. There are individuals that have left traces that are not easily available, for this reason I don't see an issue when the collection of that information and the supporting sources are arranged by the subject themselves. Besides AGF, they are risking their reputation and credibility. Information out of the norm or controversial should be backed by other sources, this seems commons sense.--Micru (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?

Wikidata has a few guidelines listed in Category:Wikidata guidelines. @Micru: has been trying to add this page to the list; @Pigsonthewing: has been reverting, with the argument seeming to be whether or not being a guideline "is the purpose of this page". I don't really care about original purpose, but adding it to the guidelines category will make it more findable, and better interlink with our other guidelines and policies, which I think is good. What is the disadvantage of labeling this a "guideline"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion the header of the template "guideline" applies perfectly fine to this page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." It is not a policy, that certainly would require broad support, it is just a guidance for editors and I do not understand why my changes are being reverted. @Pigsonthewing: Could you please explain your actions?--Micru (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to introducing new guidelines (anything about what people should do), everyone that's interested should bre able to object new guidelines being added and thus that decision should be made via an RfC and not simply on a talk page where many people don't see that the discussion exists. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: This was announced here and on the project chat, where everyone that was interested was able to object (and they did, and their concerns have been added to the document). The statement that this "decision should be made via an RfC and not simply on a talk page" reflects your own opinion, as we don't have any guideline about how to enact guidelines or policies, therefore I find correct that we improvise a process since we lack a formal one. In my opinion, this page follows your request of being seen by many people and it has had a lot of participation, so I don't understand your reason to oppose to it becoming a guideline (if you have one), could you please explain?--Micru (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

While we don't have a formal guideline on how to write guidelines, previously new guidelines were created via RfC.

I don't think that many people participated in this discussion in contrast to past discussions about new policy. Whether it's the government or a private organization like Wikipedia you have constant growth in the amount of policies that exist. This makes it often hard to get an overview over the existing policies.

This means it's bad to be too liberal about creating new policy. Seeking opinions from more people before new policy is proposed s a way to do that. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all, this is not proposed as a policy, but as a guideline. We have many well established pages that act as a guideline even if they are not tagged as such (for instance: Help:Label) because of the fear that some people have about being "too liberal about creating new policy", so in a way that fear is preventing Wikidata of having functional, well-established guidelines tagged as such, when they are in use anyway. Regardless of a page being tagged as a guideline or not, people tend to follow them because they are useful. The uncertainity about the status of a guideline, should not be a reason for editors to abuse that uncertainity for their own benefit. If this would not be tagged as a guideline anyone would be able to arbitrarily claim that "you are not able to edit your own item because that is not a guideline", where there is a well established consensus that you are indeed able to edit your own item as this page reflects.

"Seeking opinions from more people..." is very nice and should be done, however it has been done already and the people who considered relevant to voice their opinion have done that already. What else do you need? --Micru (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Currently at the top of this page: "Any more comments about this or can we put it up for a vote to make it an official policy?--Micru (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that was my understanding at the time, but then you said "Wikidata:Autobiography does not require "approval", because it is informal guidance, not a draft policy.", which I agree with, this guidance is not a draft policy and as such does not require "approval".--Micru (talk) 08:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@ArthurPSmith, ChristianKl, Pigsonthewing: It seems to me that the concerns raised have been addressed, so if there are no new things to discuss I will put the "guideline template" back into the page in the next days. I take into account that we might need some sort of a standard procedure to approve future guidelines or policies.--Micru (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Micru: I don't see that consensus was found on this page to make this page a guideline. It currently seems to me that it's mainly your view that it should be a guideline. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:33, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I don't see any reason why it should not be a guideline. Do you have any?--Micru (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been enough community discussion for it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Define the meaning of "enough community discussion". In terms of time, the discussion has been open for more than a year. In terms of participation, besides the discussion here, it was also discussed on the project chat. If you don't put more substance into your argument, it seems to me that you are against it just for the sake of it.--Micru (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The fact that this dicussion is open for that long a time doesn't mean that it's discoverable. Discussion on the reference for comments lists on the other hand are discoverable and I know from past experience that there's a lot of discussion that can happen when different people give their input even if the draft was circulated already before like my Living People policy draft was. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:23, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Do you think an RfC should be open about this to make it more discoverable? If so, for how long? And what will you consider "enough community discussion" to pass it as a guideline? Can we scrap this page if it is not liked/doesn't attract enough interest and start anew (or leave it altogether)?--Micru (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I do think that an RfC should be open. In theory it should be open till there's consenus. In practice that means it's open till an admin closes it (and at best an admin that's impartial). Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen as fast I would like but I don't see that as a reason against using the RfC process. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: I do not know exactly how to phrase my request, but to make it simple I will go straight to the point: can you put together an RfC? I feel that by this time I have formed a view on the subject, so I would prefer if a neutral person could present it in the most objective way possible. Please let me know if you are willing to take up the challenge. Personally I consider relevant to clarify first what is the difference between guideline and policy, and how to make them active. I suppose that it has to do with interest in fixing an issue, exposure, appeal, consensus, minimalism, and support, but there might be other factors to consider that I am not able to see, for example, is an RfC the only way to change the status of a page? (Here I am thinking more broadly about pages that are labeled as "proposed"). Once addressed that, it might be easier to find out what to do with this page. Since I didn't mention it before, it might be relevant to declare that I am doing outreach efforts, and I would appreciate some clarity to know for sure if autobiographical edits are accepted by the community so that I communicate it clearly to external parties. Until now I have believed that making this page a guideline could help me in my goal of promoting Wikidata to the external world in a way that is factual and aligned with the wishes of the community, but there might be other ways that I have not considered so far. --Micru (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This page is not and is not intended to be a guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: You should already know that once you publish a page here, you release it into the Commons, where its ownership is shared with everybody else. I'm not saying that your opinion is not important, only that all the opinions (or at least those we have access to) should be taken into consideration. I would also recommend that instead of focusing on the "is/is not a guideline", we move the debate to a more productive area, like what does the community get by considering this a guideline, or what speaks against it.--Micru (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Please don't attempt to patronise me so. I know full well that once a page is published here, it is released into the Commons; that does not make it a guideline. What would be productive would be for you to stop trying to make this page into something it is not; and to stop trying to manage this benighted conversation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not attempting to patronise you, I am sorry if my message come across that way for you. You seem to have a strong belief about what this page is/isn't, which is not helping advance the conversation. There are comments, and I reply to them the best way that I can/I know, it seems irrelevant to me to label that as "managing a conversation" (I seem to detect some negativity associated with that label, but I cannot pinpoint why, because in the end everybody is steering the conversations in the way that they seem more fit to their intention). You consider this conversation "benighted", however I do not share that perception.--Micru (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)