User talk:FuturistAmyWebb

May 2020
If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is. JBW (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

To JBW (talk). The page is about me. I didn't create it, I didn't write it, and I've never edited it. For years, there has been incorrect/ misleading information listed. Today I corrected three things: where I live, and two of my affiliations. There is misleading information in the Talk section of the page, which I have not responded to. I respect the Wikipedia community and the Wikipedia governing conventions. That said, I should be able to correct very basic information about me, since I am the primary source.FuturistAmyWebb (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Amy. Here are a few comments in response to what you have said. I hope that some or all of them may help to clarify things.
 * I understand what you are saying, and I think I can imagine what it must be like to see misleading information about you persisting for years. I think it probably very often happens that a person who is the subject of a Wikipedia article sees inaccuracies which she or he can easily correct, whereas for an outsider it might be very difficult to find reliable sources where the information can be verified or refuted. I also don't see anything controversial or problematic about the small amount of editing you have done. I posted my message above not because I have any criticism of what you have done, but in order to warn you of potential for problems which yo may encounter. Unfortunately we can't assume that anyone posting about themselves is a reliable source, because we very often get people coming along to change information about themselves in ways which are not accurate. Sometimes that is deliberate dishonesty, with a view to misleading people about themselves, and sometimes, perhaps more often, it is editing in good faith but from a biased point of view which, as I tried to indicate above, may make their account unreliable even if they sincerely believe they are being truthful. Because of that, many experienced Wikipedia editors become highly suspicious of anyone writing about themselves. In extreme cases I have seen minor corrections of fact, no more controversial than those you have made, reverted simply because they were made by the person concerned. As I said, that is an extreme situation, and not typical, but it can happen, and if you make changes that look even remotely as though they may be done in order to enhance the impression given of you, you will be moving into an area where there may well be legitimate doubts. So where do you cross the line from uncontroversial to potentially controversial editing? There is no clear answer to that, and different people will see the line as being at different places. I therefore thought it might be helpful to warn you of the potential for problems. Another point worth bearing in mind is that we have only your word for who you are. I have no reason to doubt your word, but we really do sometimes get someone coming along and making false edits abut a person, claiming to be that person, so as to give their changes apparent authority. Once again, I have no reason to suppose that is so in your case, but that gives one more reason, in addition to the unreliability of people writing about themselves which I have already mentioned, why although "I should be able to correct very basic information about me, since I am the primary source" on the face of it seems like common sense, things are in fact not as simple as that. In fact, because of the kinds of problems I have described and others, coming from a primary source to a large extent makes information less reliable. I am willing to believe that you are who you say you are, and that the changes you have made are valid (otherwise I would have reverted your editing) but it is likely to be helpful for you to realise that, for very good reasons, if anyone challenges your editing, "you can take my word for it because it's about me and I am the primary source" will not be an acceptable answer, and unless you can point to reliable secondary sources supporting what you say, you will not be able to insist on your version being kept. JBW (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)