User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Admin coaching/J-stan/Tasks/BLP

WP:BLP is one of the most important editing guideline on Wikipedia. It regulates existing content and allows for the removal of unfit content. It prevents edit wars and legal disputes against Wikipedia and its editors. It also protects the subject of the article.

Nobody likes an edit war. BLP prevents these from taking place by making only sourced, factual information acceptable for inclusion. The introduction to BLP states that we should "be very firm about the use of high quality references". Jimbo Wales put it nicely when he made his 2006 Wikimania keynote address: "we have very minor celebrities and sort of controversial people, they read their article on Wikipedia and if it isn't good, then they complain, they get upset". He goes on to describe possible further actions that could be taken by the subject as blanking the page a few times, and getting blocked for it. I know not what mode of communication was intended for this note, but the title makes the message quite clear: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

Legal disputes are to be strictly avoided. Picture for a moment, a minor celebrity (we'll say an author) decides to Google him or herself just to find a few reviews of their work. Wikipedia is often in the initial ten Google results. So they click on the link to find some misinformation that could have been added with innocent intentions. The author is unaware of guidelines such as WP:AGF and WP:NLT, and complains on the talk page, making a legal threat. Wikipedia has just lost an author, someone who could greatly contribute to Wikipedia, and could possibly (though not likely) face some form of legal action.

Another important aspect of the relevance of BLP is that it protects the subject of the article from harmful publicity. When writing biographical articles, we need to take into account who will see the article: everyone with non-regulated internet access. Critics aren't always gentle, so we have sections of BLP regarding criticism to protect the subject from too many harsh opinions. We aren't making collections of critical essays, we are making a neutral, encyclopedic article. While preserving the neutrality, we are also protecting the subject from being harmed by serious rumors. We also must protect the privacy of the subject by allowing only relevant info. If it is irrelevant (BLP lists things such as home value and addresses), it should be removed per BLP and WP:N.

Administrators can enforce this policy in a number of ways. BLP mentions a few. One of these is blocking. It's pretty simple: an editor adds some bad, unsourced content, it gets removed, assuming good faith the whole time. But the user insists on it, and it gets added and removed another time. If the user is persistent, they should be blocked for disruption. Another of these is page semi- or full protection. If editors persistently add bad info through a method such as sockpuppetry or mass vandalism, the page should be given a level of protection, depending on the degree of anonymity taken by the users (IP or user accounts).

Now, deletion is a bit tricky. The jury is out on how much weight should be given to a deletion request by the subject of the article, so it is up to the administrators to decide how it should be treated (personally, if the subject has asked for deletion based on misleadingly false content, it should be protected, not deleted, with all false information removed. If at all unsure, I would seek guidance from a more experienced admin).

BLP is very important in regulating content and is to be strictly adhered to. Jimbo Wales summarized why we have a regulated system for Biographies of Living Persons when he said "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Encyclopedic content isn't biased, it is neutral, verifiable, and most importantly, true.