Wikipedia talk:Obscure public information

Not a good idea
I do not think that this proposal is a good idea. There will be endless confused debate about what "readily available" means, but more importantly, it denies Wikipedia the use of public information - which I believe to be incompatible with the aims of the encyclopædia. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is just a proposal, the final version can be more precise in its definitions. Wikipedia is a very prominent source, much more so that some of the sources we use. If something is notable enough that not including it would be seriously incompatible with our aims, then there should be another, more readily available, source that we can use. --Tango (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this proposal. The question of whether available information ought to be included is treated elsewhere, for example Biographies_of_living_persons. The question is not whether the information is readily available, but whether it is both verifiable and relevant. As one prominent example, the most authoritative source for the outcome of court decisions is frequently court documents that may be difficult to obtain; but these are frequently quite relevant to the person's life and are better sources than media reports on the outcome. Dcoetzee 21:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Court documents were exactly what I was going to point out. I agree that BLP covers this well enough. I don't see a real need for a new policy. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Over on Wikinews we regularly dig into PACER to get court documents. Where your usage is light, the service is free (i.e. if it costs too much to bill they don't). I see no reason why such a system should be excluded from the selection of sources that are deemed legitimate. --Brian McNeil /talk 21:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikinews isn't a top 10 website, so the same risks don't apply. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So obscure wikis [edited by mostly the same people] can use obscure sources? This is the strongest argument for forking that I've heard yet. — CharlotteWebb 00:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I re-read BLP before posting this, and I can't see anything in there than mentions the risks of using obscure sources. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant (and I think Dcoetzee did as well) that the spirit of that sub-section, that is, that using certain private obscure information with regard to living people, can be applicable elsewhere. While it isn't incredibly specific, I believe that the spirit of the policy aligns with the spirit of this proposed policy. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The key thing with this proposal is that it's about *public* obscure information. Private obscure information should certainly not be included, that isn't in dispute. --Tango (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, this page was created specifically to discuss the question of how readily available information is, so that is the question. If the information has been published in media reports, then I see no harm in going to the originals to verify things and get the exact quotes, etc. The problem is when information is only available in very obscure sources and Wikipedia. Wikipedia is effectively making that information available. The issue which prompted this proposal was about the exact location of the Wikimedia Foundation offices (and, more generally, the offices of any other similar organisation). That information is publicly available to anyone that happens to walk down that street or who takes the time to look it up in the official records, but pretty much nowhere else. Not including that information doesn't really harm the encyclopaedia, but including it could impact of the safety of people working there. Wikipedia has plenty of enemies, we don't want them turning up on the doorstep of the offices putting employees at risk. The same applies to other organisations (at least, ones not big enough to have security personnel on the door). --Tango (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So the policy is really for the Foundation's convenience, not the encyclopædia's benefit. I kind of thought that part of what an encyclopædia does is "effectively making that information available". Now, let's take as an example a major brand, which relies on donations and free labour. Its address is available in official records, but it doesn't want anyone to know. A couple of thoughts spring to mind 1) They must have no idea whatsoever about PR, and 2) why are they hiding from the people who make it work? DuncanHill (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This proposal is for the benefit of all kinds of people, but yes, it's not for the encyclopaedia's benefit. I think you've misunderstood the purpose of an encyclopaedia, we don't make information available, we compile information that is already available (that's the reasoning behind WP:NOR). This policy just changes "available" to "readily available" in cases where the information could be harmful. --Tango (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have the Foundation put any thought into what definition of "readily available" will be in the policy when it is imposed? DuncanHill (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My intention in proposing this policy is to pre-empt any attempt by the foundation to dictate policy. Jimmy seems to think he could get away with it, I'm not so sure - either way, the community making the decisions is far better. If they try and impose a policy against community consensus (and, judging by this page, there is no consensus for such a policy), I will fight it. --Tango (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ...changes "available" to "readily available" in cases where the information could be harmful ← Whatever threshold of "availability" we adopt, it should apply regardless of the whether the information "could be harmful [or helpful]". — CharlotteWebb 00:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? What reason is there to restrict sources of harmless information? --Tango (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why does the shoe fit differently on the other foot? Let's say our editors find an "not readily available" source that says "Charlotte Webb set her ex-lover's house on fire and was arrested for arson in Feb. 1988. Passerby Tango rescued two innocent puppies trapped in the stairwell, and was honored by the city council for his heroism."... Wikipedia can cite this source in your article but not in mine? Must be my lucky day... — CharlotteWebb 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The question is one of relevance; there are many cases where we make information more broadly available than it was before, for example whenever we reference material from a book. Can you understand the Wikimedia Foundation and their history and purpose without knowing the street address of their offices? Certainly - and that makes it (almost) irrelevant, and eligible for omission. This is very similar to previous conflicts over whether the real names of certain people should be included in their articles, like the Star Wars kid. Final decision: no, it's irrelevant, but in some cases it might be.
 * To put it another way, it's not harmless for us to include information that's already been widely disseminated, and it's not automatically harmful for us to include information that hasn't been. It's the nature of the information that matters. Dcoetzee 22:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an alternative approach that could work. I think it's easier to judge if a piece of information is readily available or not than it is the judge relevance, though. --Tango (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two separate issues here: relevance of the address itself and relevance of the photo of the building entrance. I can see the former being questionable, but the latter less so, since it is one way that the WMF chooses to present themselves to the world. --NE2 22:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there will be arguments over what "could cause harm". The cost of the extra time spent by someone looking for the information can certainly be called harm, possibly enough to outweigh a guess that people looking to cause trouble won't know how to find the address. --NE2 22:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's something that could do with clarification before writing the final policy. --Tango (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wikimedia Foundation is a public charity, not a living person, so as drafted this would not affect the building photo. As for levels of obscurity, there are several databases available from my library, for example, that list addresses of corporations. I think it'd be a stretch to say that any information in those databases, which I can access for free from my home in my pajamas, is more obscure than information in scholarly journals which may require far greater effort to obtain but which we consider to be the "gold standard" of sourcing. The issue of court records has been mentioned in this thread, and they have their own special problems, both in terms of access and reliability. Many court records are difficult and expensive to obtain, while others are posted in places like The Smoking Gun. Affidavits in civil cases like divorces are notoriously unreliable while final judgments are presumably authoritative. I think most of the concerns here are really more about primary versus secondary sources, not obscurity. An obscure secondary source is usually given more credence than an easily available primary source. It might be better to argue that information about living people that's only available from primary sources shouldn't be included. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The staff in the office are living people - they are the ones potentially at risk. --Tango (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. By that logic, we should also not have photographs of the Sears tower, Empire State Building, White House, Louvre, Trump Tower, or any of the other countless buildings mentioned on-wiki.  What makes those working at the WMF better than the people who work at those places?  Celarnor Talk to me  04:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly object to this proposal. As someone else already pointed out (in regard to what likely prompted this whole thing), if people want to see the building entrance, they can use the very public and very available street view in a certain well-known map search tool. If they don't want people to know they are there, take the logo off the building. This proposal is taking things too far. If the information is verifiable and notable, it can and should be included. As the addresses and pictures of the headquarters of many major corporations are listed here, I see no reason why the Wikimedia Foundation should get special treatment due to the possibility of a perceived—yet unlikely in reality—potential threat. If people at the Foundation's headquarters want to feel more secure, they should hire security and use keycards to access the building. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with most of the other people who have commented here. Public information is readily available; that's the whole point.  The address of the foundation is easy to find; DNS lookups, trademark applications and their non-profit application, all of which are publicly available, would contain that information.  There's no reason that can't be included; that's pretty much the definition of public; simply because it's in an electronic public information archive and not in a newspaper doesn't make it any less of a reliable source.
 * If the foundation is worried about security, it should do the same thing that any other high-profile, high-interest corporation does; install some security systems and get some insurance. Celarnor Talk to me  03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost all buildings are the workplaces or residences of living people. Perhaps we need a "buildings of living persons" policy ;). Many, perhaps most, businesses and organizations have addresses that are easily obtained. Some go to the opposite extreme and do all they can to hide their location. Most people keep their residences confidential, but others invite in photographers, and either way property records are easy to search. Google provides photographs of an increasing number of buildings. It's going to be hard to define "obscure" in a meaningful and general way that applies to this century. Perhaps the way to look at this is as a matter of original research. While the address of a building may be known, to post a photograph of it based on that address may be viewed as original research. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If the determining of the address in question is performed by someone who's making wild guesses based on what buildings are entered while following Jimbo Wales during the day, perhaps. A property record, the text of a trademark application, the text of their tax-exempt application; these are not methods of original research.  These are sources, and I see no problems with using them as such.  To say that the building at that address isn't the building ... at that address ... is a red herring; common sense can go a long way.  Celarnor Talk to me  04:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Background
Some background to this proposal can be read at Talk:Wikimedia Foundation DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And the deletion review of the image which appears to have started it all is at Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_13. DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. So basically, the proposal and the background will be like a loud flashing invitation to bloggers to talk about the topic which would - as a result - prevent wikipedians from applying such rule to the WMF office picture question. Sounds like Barbara in action -- Mathias Schindler (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I had never heard of the Streisand effect before - thanks for the link!. I really think that trying to hide where the foundation offices are is a classic case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * One can get a thing called a lock if one is worried about people wandering in off the street. Many buildings come fitted with them as standard. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not readily available
Are we talking in a cellar, with the lights (and the stairs) gone, in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' here? Or are we talking having to get a bus into town, or (as is the case with the Foundation offices) a very swift look in the most obvious place imaginable turning up the address and a nice photo? DuncanHill (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of smoke, but no light
To summarize, this apparently stems from an image someone uploaded, reportedly of the front door to Wikimedia Foundation headquarters, that was deleted for questionable reasons. Then the deletion was then said to be an WP:OFFICE matter (despite the stated process for such things), although this was later de-clarified. Then there were some mysterious emails and we get a vague and creepy policy proposal.

I think someone official needs to tell us just what the actual concern with the image was that required all this drama (especially since at least one recent edit in the history of the Wikimedia Foundation article mentioning the address hasn't been oversighted yet) and what mistakes were made in this process. Then someone needs to figure out exactly what this proposal is trying to prevent and rewrite it to say that instead of the incredibly vague "information that could cause harm (directly or indirectly)". Anomie⚔ 01:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Policies need at least some objective criteria
I have never seen a policy proposed loaded with so many subjective criteria: These words lack objective definitions or even scales to quantify their subjective definition. At this level one could have one policy of "do the right thing with public information" and have the equivalent precision. patsw (talk) 02:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * could cause harm
 * (directly or indirectly)
 * readily available
 * significant effort
 * small subset
 * visiting a particular public place which is not generally frequented by the public
 * And "obscure", too. This needs to be far, far more well-defined before it could be considered as a policy. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Obscure"
Can we come up with a practical, neutral, objective definition of "obscure"? The most relevant dictionary definition is "Out of sight; hidden". Is any information in a free, freely-accessible internet-connected database obscure? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. If you have to engage in original research in order to determine a fact, then that fact is not suitable for use in the encyclopedia.  Thus, using the Podunkville, Massachusetts assessor's online database to determine the address for Joe Johnson is original research and the address can't be used, even if some reliable source said that Joe was the only Johnson to own property in Podunkville.  Incidentally, this would mean that we don't need a new policy, we just need to enforce an existing one.  GRBerry 05:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say no; absolutely not. Original research would require us, to well, do research.  In both the above example and the situation that spawned that, no research is necessary; we don't have to go knocking on doors to find out whether Joe Johnson is living there, since we have the information freely available to us, in online form no less, and from the most authoritative source on who lives where available in the country.  While I would be slightly more inclined to say that something would be obscure if it was only available in print and only summaries were available online, if you can freely access it on the internet without jumping through hoops, then it is no by no stretch obscure.  Celarnor Talk to me  05:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The address is given on several sites - see, pg 173 of or page 167 of  and I found those without half trying.  Taking a photograph of something verifiable is not original research.  I'm sure the Foundation has a vested interest in random people not showing up at their office and so they don't want their address publicized, but honestly, talk about a conflict of interest.  If we were talking about some other random company, would we censor their address? --B (talk) 06:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would like to add that we have traditionally encouraged mild original research when it comes to images. We want people to go out and take pictures of everything that has an encyclopedia article, and it would be weird not to allow an image of the company headquarters of the foundation behind the Wikimedia Commons. I would expect the WMF to lead by example of openness, not by asking for protection. Kusma (talk) 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea
I do not like the way this policy is written, and will not support it.

At the same time, I would like to recommend that people re-think some issues of human dignity and safety with respect to editorial judgments about what goes into the encyclopedia, and to not turn this into a cause. For example, to answer B, from above, in general yes we would and yes we should exclude most addresses of small organizations or homes upon request, for the same kinds of reasons that have been outlined repeatedly in discussions relating to oversight and BLP. Among the many things that Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not an address book. Wikipedia is not google maps. Such information is clutter and us insisting on including them will be a fabulous tool for stalkers trying to frighten their victims by uploading photos of their homes or offices.

Strawman arguments like "Oh, this means we have to delete pictures of the Empire State Building" are entirely unconvincing.

In the end, this particular case is no big deal. But the general principle is a big deal and one which I will gladly enforce.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the inclusion of unnecessary details is generally covered by WP:UNDUE, and I'm only too happy to employ it where needed. Rather than second-guessing stalkers and trying to introduce a new policy to cover something as nebulous as what defines a small office or who gets to request that obscure public information be removed, maybe we'd be much better off simply focusing our efforts on enforcing WP:UNDUE with some of the same gusto we use when enforcing WP:BLP? -- jonny - m  t  13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For entities of marginal notability, we obviously shouldn't be putting up a 72-picture gallery of their building. However, I think a picture or two is quite appropriate for corporations; homes are a different matter due to privacy concerns, questions of notability, and the like; however, if someone's home is particularly notable, then absolutely it should have images.  A stalker isn't limited to the use of Wikipedia, which, with the tight restrictions on content that we have, would be all but useless for that particular endeavor, and yes, if looking up an address in a government directory and taking a photo of the building at that address constitutes original research, we can't include user-uploaded images of buildings since they would all be based on OR.  So, without common sense, we'd have to use third-party images for pretty much everything.


 * A stalker would do what everyone else here has done; looked in the non-profit directory, tax-exempt filings, DNS records. Someone planning some kind of attack on the Foundation probably isn't going be looking to use the Foundation's own tools in the process, but that's beside the point.  There are already images provided of the inside of the office by Foundation employees themselves.  I would imagine those would be more of a risk, tactically speaking; it is much easier to come by your address, which is a matter of public interest, than it is to come by the floor plans of a privately-owned building.


 * As for the security of the office, if having a picture of the building that you work in(?) scares you into removing it from Wikipedia, then there are probably some bigger security issues that need to be addressed; There's a picture of where I work, and its being available to the project doesn't bother me. Celarnor Talk to me  15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I once uploaded a picture of my workplace to Commons, and someone who was stalking me used it to help find me. However, I informed security beforehand and this person was given a legal warning and ejected from the premises; and this information could have been obtained by other means. Even though this image is orphaned, I believe it is useful and would not have wanted it removed - in the long run, making information available to the world takes a higher priority to me than a small degree of risk to my personal safety.
 * Jimbo is right that there has long been consensus for the omission of irrelevant information that may violate a person's privacy, and that comparisons to monuments are false; at the same time, I do not believe that relevant and illustrative information should ever be removed on the basis of privacy alone, only that information that puts privacy at risk has to meet a higher bar for relevancy and/or utility. Dcoetzee 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I received an email from you which included this: "Will you help me get out the core point here: that just because a fact appears in some obscure place, that does not make it ok to put it into wikipedia." After exchanging a few emails with you I became concerned that you intended to take action and dictate policy with no regard for community consensus despite the issue not falling under what is usually considered the office's responsibility. Since I agreed with your general point and to avoid the inevitable drama that would be caused if you tried to force the issue and realised that you are, in fact, not all powerful, I went through the standard process for proposing a new policy which is the correct way to achieve your goals. If you don't like my formulation, suggest one of your own. I have no particularly strong feelings on the matter and will not fight your battles for you. I tried to help you avoid embarrassing yourself, but it's over to you now. Do what you like and we'll see who's right about the extent of your powers, shall we? --Tango (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Jimbo, "not include" is not the same as "censor". Addresses of 99.9999% of our subjects are not encyclopedic (the exception being 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and the like).  But to exclude a photo of a company's building simply because it gives a street number is a different issue.  I agree that we are not a phone book.  I don't agree that photos that show street numbers should be censored or redacted. --B (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. Obviously, having the address in the infobox is pointless; that's hardly relevant, and would probably only become so if the Foundation got its own building and it received coverage or something.  But a photo is a completely different matter and to actively delete material simply because it contains that information doesn't make sense to me unless you don't want someone to know what the building looks like or what the address of the building is; seeing as the first is easily findable with the second, and the second is a matter of public record and isn't really something that you can hide, there really isn't anything you can do about that.  Photos themselves add flavor and flare to otherwise text-heavy pages; this is a text-heavy page.  It could use a few photographs.  Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Prior to the Internet Age, the traditional purpose of an encyclopedia was to take obscure information -- information only available in specialty publications and other obscure sources -- and make it available to a wider public. Because virtually no information was "readily available" in the sense meant today, this was an important service. Although a great deal of information is available on the internet, this service is still necessary and valueable. Prohibiting the "obscure" information would remove the entire pre-internet purpose of having an encyclopedia, as well as the use of a vast array of pre-internet sources. It would heavily bias the encyclopedia away from truly scholarly work. It would inhibit use of older journal articles, foreign language articles, and much else. More fundamentally, it would make Wikipedia a follower, not a leader, in making genuinely notable and reliable information available to the general public, because the whole encyclopedic purpose and value of making such information available would be off the table. I would suggest a much more limited proposal that identifies specific problems it is attempting to solve and provides restrictions limited to addressing only those problems. best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Obscure public information
Should this not be qualified specifically to (if agreed upon) exclude bureaucratic records, but continue to allow for material from, say, minority journals and other small-print-run/low distribution sources that meet WP:V...?

As written, "readily available" could potentially easily be misapplied or misconstrued and applied to a number of journals, magazines and newspapers that would otherwise meet all the requirements of an appropriate source. And presumably this policy suggestion is not intended to exclude such sources of information? ntnon (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the reasoning for that? Bereaucratic records are more reliable then minority journals and small-print-run newspapers printed in some village in Maine.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  18:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but reliability isn't the issue, (as I understand it) in this case, merely AVAILABILITY.


 * So my point was only that, say, if bureaucratic records or non-lending collections of libraries are not deemed "readily available" because they are not easily accessible to Mr Smith in a state/country many miles away, then that logic can equally apply to - otherwise-reliable as sources on their own merits - some journals which might only be available via subscription, with subscriptions only available to certain academics (or similar situations).


 * Does that clarify my point, or muddy the waters further..?! ntnon (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (Put another way, DuncanHill writes above: "There will be endless confused debate about what 'readily available' means..". Will Beback's comments also make my point very clearly. The only real difference if that I was perhaps inclined more to wondering if such debates/sources could be covered explicitly, and then the proposal modified in some way to be clearer.) ntnon (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really. The issue that spawned this discussion was with regards to a document that can easily be found online.  It is readily available for anyone who can perform a simple search on the internet.  The document is a matter of public interest, and must be so available as a matter of Federal record-keeping and public availability requirements.  If we should be having an availability discussion about anything, we should be having it about highbeam and the like, where you have to pay to get the full article; to me, that doesn't meet verifiability anywhere NEAR as much as public records do.  <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  04:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Censoring one piece of information because people are (with some justification) paranoid is bad enough. But starting a whole new vaguely worded policy for censoring all sorts of random documents just to cover it is even worse.  And this policy is comically pointless.  The only thing it prohibits is for people to do WP:original research looking up obscure documents and putting them directly on Wikipedia.  (And yes, it probably is original research for example to look up the deed for a building and to put on wikipedia that this is where someone lives, since for all you know that's an investment property or something).  At the same time, it does nothing to prohibit publishing the information however personal once it is scrubbed through any third party site.  And I have news for you: it took me six minutes to find the Wikimedia Foundation's address on a Google search (mostly because I was stupid and looking for "Wikipedia").  It is posted at a delightful little site "deletionpedia.dbatley.com" that I'll need to examine further, and at less interesting sites like encyclopediadramatica.com and the Wikipedia Review.  Please, give up this pointless charade entirely, but allocate enough money in the Wikimedia budget for decent locks, alarms, and security service to ensure some nut-job doesn't take this project down.  Thanks.  Wnt (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)