Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/verification

The issues of verification have been brought up in regards to determining that a wikipedian has died. If it is acceptable to the community, I would like to centralize the discussion here. I'd ask all participants to please remain calm, civil, and respectful. Thank you. — Ched : ?  22:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Points of reference:
 * (please add other threads that you are aware of)


 * here
 * here

Speaking with family members of deceased Wikipedians
Generally speaking, anything that we do or say on Wikipedia has minimal effect on others. Even at our rudest, all we can do is irritate another volunteer, or confuse our significant others when explaining a particular string of Wikipedia jargon. There are however, a few exceptions, and one is speaking with non-Wikipedian family members. As collective, we are incredibly narcissistic. We care about our rules, our standards, and our policies, all of which are totally usually foreign to those outside our community. If we are serious about creating guidelines about deceased Wikipedians, we need to be serious about instructing Wikipedians on how to talk to outsiders during a death notification or death verification. We cannot do, what we too often do: muck around, demand adherence to our many, many policies, confuse, bluster, and fume at outsiders who don't adapt quickly to our ways.

As I see it we have three principle options:
 * 1) Defer entirely to the OTRS team, who are accountable and generally selected because of their diplomacy.
 * 2) Defer to Wikipedians who knew the deceased when they contact the deceased. This will require a certain amount of ad hoc communication.
 * 3) Create strong guidelines on who and how family and friends of the deceased are contacted.

This is not something we can handle in our normal amateur way. This is one of those few times where we make traction with the real world, and real people can be emotionally hurt because of our collective actions. Lets get this right.--Tznkai (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, first, the particular thread started with User:LessHeard vanU's post, and I thought the idea of a template of some sort was an excellent idea. I'll try to remember to follow up on that with him.


 * Now, secondly, I understand that a lot of this verification stuff will need to be worked out, and at times it will get blunt. I think it's important that we remember, due to the topic in general, that it will be viewed by many people who are under a great deal of stress, grief, and high levels of emotions.  The point I'd like to make is this: I think it is very important that we refrain from using buzzword terminology that can be viewed as inflammatory, hurtful, or disrespectful. Terms like: idiot, ignorant (even if it's dictionary definition may be accurate, it is insulting in practice), foolish, and socially incompetent simply are not going to come across well when we are dealing with the issue of lost loved ones.  I understand that there are concise ways to indicate that users may not have all the technical skills to navigate our domain effectively, but I think it's important that we take the extra few moments to parse our words carefully.  We are a community that is open for public viewing at all times, with the possible exception of various administrator abilities, and we should remember that many people coming to the WP:RIP areas may not be familiar with our usual habits of discourse in achieving consensus.  In that respect, I think we need to extend the wp:civil platform to its highest level. — Ched :  ?  09:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the verification issues and OTRS. I see two fundamental forks that need to be addressed at this point.
 * 1) Anonymity. We need to respect at all times those who chose to keep their Wikipedia identity separate from their personal life.  If user:ABC never intended to disclose his or her personal identity, and neither he (or she) indicated that it should change (either to us, or to family members), then of course we need to respect this.  As such, obit listings are not of much help in verification.  This is where OTRS, and respected community members must deal with the issues in a tactful, yet expedient, manner.  We obviously don't want hoaxes and vandalism to rear their heads here.  Personally, I've selected two long standing, and respected members of the community, and entrusted them with my personal information such as phone numbers, address, etc.  Not all members of the community may think that far ahead, and we'll need to deal with that at times.
 * 2) Those who chose to eschew the anonymity, and edit under their real names. The obit listings in this case make it easier in some fashions to verify a death.  I would imagine in some respects, it may also create some issues.  We want to be respectful in all we do, and we should remember to address only the behavior and edits of a person within our community.  I'm sure we have editors here who would not want their own personal issues to be brought up here.  One does not have to be an outstanding stellar member of their own real life community - to be a respected and honored member of the Wikipedia community.  I think it's important that we stick to only the actions and contributions here within Wikipedia when we're forced to deal with these issues. — Ched :  ?  09:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Let each user specify one or more email addresses that are authorized to send a death notice. Each user could select a trusted Wikipedian to be the recipient of the authorized email. jmcw (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why people can't just do something like this? It sure makes this sort of thing easier. — neuro  (talk)  11:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Very good example of the concept. jmcw (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree wholeheartedly, and I'll personally doing the same when I return from my little trip. Hopefully, others will follow Neuro's lead, and make things so much easier ... wait... I'm "trusted", we may have to evaluate Neuro's state of mind here, or at least his judgment. ;).  The tough ones no doubt will be those who don't express any wishes outright though.  I do have to admit, I am very optimistic and downright surprised at the number of folks willing to contribute such positive input in the matter. — Ched :  ?  21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)