3 ms·

An actress notable enough to merit her own Wikipedia article didn't want her name known, but her name was a matter of public record? I don't know about this ca

by avar 3y ago

An actress notable enough to merit her own Wikipedia article didn't want her name known, but her name was a matter of public record? I don't know about this case, but it seems entirely reasonable that to argue for including the name, or not. Plenty of public personas have aliases they wish to be known by, but their Wikipedia article prominently notes their real name.

permo-w 3y ago
surely people should have a right to privacy wrt this kind of thing?
- avar 3y ago
  Wikipedia isn't a primary source, and it needs to be verifiable. So by definition it's not exposing any information you can't find in other public sources. Whether it's notable and something that should be included is another matter. In any case, I'm saying that if you look at the articles for Madonna, Bono, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Manson etc. you'll find their real name displayed prominently. We can't form our own opinion in this case, as the GP is deliberately keeping the specific article in question hidden. But in general this seems like a thing two editors could reasonably disagree about.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    It's probably the case that "outing" a micro-celebrity or someone who isn't really especially well-known is sort of obnoxious. But, yeah, for especially well-known people in the spotlight (often by their own choice) there's no particular right to keep their legal name a secret.
- Alpha3031 3y ago
  As a matter of (English) Wikipedia policy the inclusion of personal details ("such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses") should not be supported by only public records. Proper names for those primarily known under an alias are not explicitly covered under this section, but there would be a reasonable case for exclusion. For the section in question, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY

by avar 3y ago

permo-w 3y ago

surely people should have a right to privacy wrt this kind of thing?

avar 3y ago
Wikipedia isn't a primary source, and it needs to be verifiable. So by definition it's not exposing any information you can't find in other public sources. Whether it's notable and something that should be included is another matter. In any case, I'm saying that if you look at the articles for Madonna, Bono, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Manson etc. you'll find their real name displayed prominently. We can't form our own opinion in this case, as the GP is deliberately keeping the specific article in question hidden. But in general this seems like a thing two editors could reasonably disagree about.
- ghaff 3y ago
  It's probably the case that "outing" a micro-celebrity or someone who isn't really especially well-known is sort of obnoxious. But, yeah, for especially well-known people in the spotlight (often by their own choice) there's no particular right to keep their legal name a secret.
Alpha3031 3y ago
As a matter of (English) Wikipedia policy the inclusion of personal details ("such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses") should not be supported by only public records. Proper names for those primarily known under an alias are not explicitly covered under this section, but there would be a reasonable case for exclusion. For the section in question, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY