User talk:Zordrac/experts

Misunderstanding of WP:NLT and WP:AUTO
While I think this proposal is well-intended and contains some interesting ideas, I'm not sure if Zordrac fully understands the intent and application of WP:NLT and WP:AUTO.

Autobiography does not prevent an article's subject from correcting errors in an article, though it does discourage extensive biographical writing. It also strongly encourages an article's subject to participate on the article's talk page.

WP:AUTO is a guideline which has evolved to fill a couple of roles. First, it explains to non-notable college students and small business owners why we tend to deleted their effusively purple prose. Second, it explains why our editors tend to be leery of major edits by the subjects of an article, and indicates that participation through the talk page is often the least controversial route.

No legal threats does not bar someone from pursuing legal action against Wikipedia if they so desire. All it does is ensure that any legal actions are handled through Wikipedia's proper channels: the lawyers of the Wikimedia Foundation.

I think the major misunderstandings arise in the statement of the 'problem', which I quote below.


 * If we totally scrapped WP:AUTO as a policy, and let everyone edit their own articles, then they would be a lot more accurate, there would be no chance of defamation or libel or any other legal problems, and things would be fine.

I think that this is frankly mistaken. There would be a tendency to whitewash on the part of some article subjects. Defamatory or libelous statements could still be made, and would remain posted until corrected&mdash;just as they do now. I reiterate that WP:AUTO does not bar participation in the editing of one's own article. If there is inaccurate information present, note the problem on the talk page and consider adding the disputed template to the article. If it is particularly egregious or apparent vandalism, correct the error and explain the changes on the talk page.

Wikipedians can and do cooperate with polite, reasonable requests from article subjects; we will gladly remove unsourced material from articles and we welcome their cooperation in our efforts to build biographical articles. WP:AUTO is meant to discourage 'reluctant' subjects who insist on the removal of factual information or insertion of promotional or just plain crazy information. (See Sollog.)


 * If then, on top of that, we allowed people to use legal threats, and scrapped Wikipedia:No legal threats then people would be able to point out when things that are written about them maybe need to be fixed.

Per my remarks above, Wikipedia's editors are usually willing to be quite helpful when faced with reasonable requests from polite–or at least civil–individuals. It is very easy and straightforward to correct articles in the manner I describe, without resort to legal threats or personal attacks. Editors may choose to engage in informal resolution of their disputes through discussion on our talk pages–obeying not just WP:NLT but also WP:NPA and WP:CIV–or they can sic their lawyers on the Foundation. They may not do both. Permitting threats–legal or otherwise–will not make a better encyclopedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?
I don't think its a misunderstanding. Its the documentation of something. I have participated in discussions on both topics, and many others, and in my opinion this is the best answer. I have no doubt whatsoever that the No legal threats policy cannot exist in any form. I did not state, you should note (or perhaps you misundestood what I said?) that WP:EXPERT would make WP:AUTO totally redundant. They could co-exist. The current rules do not allow this to happen in practice, as there is a tendency in most cases to totally ignore the comments made by the person who the article is about. Thus having a section there would make a big difference.

Naturally, people who put in huge POV sections, be they the subject of the article or not, should be stopped from doing this. However, this is already covered by other policies, and WP:AUTO is redundant in this regards. WP:AUTO only exists in prohibiting (or at least strongly discouraging) people from creating their own articles. MANY TIMES notable people made their own article only to have it deleted just because they wrote it themselves, with references to WP:AUTO.

This is not a misunderstanding by me. Rather, it is a misunderstanding by you. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 15:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely clear on why you don't believe WP:NLT can exist. Are you concerned that it is illegal in some way, or do you believe that threatening to sue your colleagues is a productive and healthy way to run this encyclopedia, or is there another rationale?
 * We have internal dispute resolution and content discussion mechanisms. Going outside the system–or threatening to–to an external court of law indicates a failure of those mechanisms; it is not a process that can operate in parallel.  None of us would like to work in an environment where content can be dictated by individuals who threaten loudest.
 * Besides, Wikipedia editors aren't permitted to answer legal challenges on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. The encyclopedia pages aren't the place to frame legal disputes&mdash;that stuff has to be handled by the Foundation's legal team and the Board of Trustees.  Permitting legal challenges and discussions on-wiki could invite serious complications, which is another reason why WP:NLT is both important and required.


 * With respect to WP:AUTO, you suggested if we "totally scrapped WP:AUTO as a policy" that "things would be fine". I took that to mean that you suppored elimination of that policy; if I misinterpreted your position on that I apologize.
 * Frankly, we have a difference of opinion on autobiography&mdash;I think it's a Good Thing that autobiographical article creation is discouraged, and I agree with the idea (from WP:AUTO) that
 * If you or your achievements are verifiable and notable; and are thus are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later.
 * I'll note that WP:AUTO is a guideline and not a policy, and further it only discourages autobiographical article creation and editing, rather than barring it completely. Our rules are flexible here, and we recognize that there are exceptional cases.  Nothing in WP:AUTO prevents an individual from removing inaccurate statements, commenting on talk pages, requesting outside comment, or seeking the advice or assistance of Wikipedia administrators. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)