5 ms·

Thank you for the update, Cliff. I will update your Wikipedia page to show that your death is currently under dispute.

by hoppyhoppy2 6mo ago

sokoloff 6mo ago
Classic Wikipedia. “I spoke with Cliff today; now I have to go discuss on the Talk page whether or not he’s dead.”
- ignoramous 6mo ago
  For living persons, Wikipedia takes misleading / contentious material quite seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin... That said, Wikipedia is pretty unapologetic about its preference for verifiability, not truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...
  - zeusdclxvi 6mo ago
    No reliable secondary sources that you are still alive I'm afraid
    - leoc 6mo ago
      To be fair, there actually is an exception specifically for just this kind of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPSELFPUB https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPSELF... .
      - ralferoo 6mo ago
        That policy itself seems wrong though. It seems to imply that anything someone claims about themselves on a personal blog doesn't need verification. People often have a vested interest to lie about themselves, and often people may not remember historical details about their lives as accurately as they believe they do. That said, "no really, I am still alive" seems like something that should be trusted as a source.
  - ClikeX 6mo ago
    They did add nuance to that quote a long time ago. It's a good stance, it's fine if someone knows something to be true. But other visitors of Wikipedia don't know that, so anything that's added without a source is questionable.
- throwup238 6mo ago
  They’re now arguing about whether the talk page counts as a secondary source.
- Rebelgecko 6mo ago
  No original research please
  - pngwen 6mo ago
    Ah, but we could cite Cliff's Facebook page as evidence that he is disputing the reports of his own death. That's at least strong enough to put his earthly existence in the "debatable" column.
    - shakna 6mo ago
      Facebook is an unreliable source, and should not be cited.
      - amiga386 6mo ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELFSOURCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELFSOURCE > Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves Clifford Stoll's own Facebook page saying he's not dead can be cited on Wikipedia, even if Facebook itself (or Clifford's non-expert opinions) are unreliable
  - tptacek 6mo ago
    You laugh, but it's a real problem. In this case: a WP claim that Stoll was dead would quickly fall to the lack of reliable sources indicating his death; naturally, there's a WP policy for this.
- KingFelix 6mo ago
  Sounds a bit like a Philip K Dick story
CliffStoll 6mo ago
I've gone out of my way to not read my wikipedia page. Beyond this, there's a rule (suggestion??) that you not edit your own biographical page. As a result, I have no idea whether things are right, wrong, misguided, or kflooey on that page. Anyone who wants to know details can simply stop over here for coffee and a chat. Cheers, -Cliff
- croemer 6mo ago
  You can suggest changes on the talk page. > Wikipedia provides a structured process for subjects to suggest changes without directly editing articles. The mechanism centers on the article's "talk page", a discussion area attached to every Wikipedia entry where editors coordinate improvements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_a_page_about_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_a_page_about...
  - CliffStoll 6mo ago
    Aah - thank you. Maybe I'll check it out. When I have free time. Uh right... Cheers, -Cliff
- simonebrunozzi 6mo ago
  > Anyone who wants to know details can simply stop over here for coffee and a chat. Amazing. Cliff, I've never met you, but I'm sure you're a great guy.
gjm11 6mo ago
In case anyone is taking this subthread too seriously: C.S.'s Wikipedia page does not in fact claim that he is dead, and its most recent update was in December 2025. Whatever rumours of his death may be circulating, they do not appear to have infected Wikipedia.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

Thank you for the update, Cliff. I will update your Wikipedia page to show that your death is currently under dispute.

sokoloff 6mo ago

Classic Wikipedia. “I spoke with Cliff today; now I have to go discuss on the Talk page whether or not he’s dead.”

ignoramous 6mo ago
For living persons, Wikipedia takes misleading / contentious material quite seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin... That said, Wikipedia is pretty unapologetic about its preference for verifiability, not truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...
- zeusdclxvi 6mo ago
  No reliable secondary sources that you are still alive I'm afraid
  - leoc 6mo ago
    To be fair, there actually is an exception specifically for just this kind of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPSELFPUB https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPSELF... .
    - ralferoo 6mo ago
      That policy itself seems wrong though. It seems to imply that anything someone claims about themselves on a personal blog doesn't need verification. People often have a vested interest to lie about themselves, and often people may not remember historical details about their lives as accurately as they believe they do. That said, "no really, I am still alive" seems like something that should be trusted as a source.
- ClikeX 6mo ago
  They did add nuance to that quote a long time ago. It's a good stance, it's fine if someone knows something to be true. But other visitors of Wikipedia don't know that, so anything that's added without a source is questionable.
throwup238 6mo ago
They’re now arguing about whether the talk page counts as a secondary source.
Rebelgecko 6mo ago
No original research please
- pngwen 6mo ago
  Ah, but we could cite Cliff's Facebook page as evidence that he is disputing the reports of his own death. That's at least strong enough to put his earthly existence in the "debatable" column.
  - shakna 6mo ago
    Facebook is an unreliable source, and should not be cited.
    - amiga386 6mo ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELFSOURCE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELFSOURCE > Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves Clifford Stoll's own Facebook page saying he's not dead can be cited on Wikipedia, even if Facebook itself (or Clifford's non-expert opinions) are unreliable
- tptacek 6mo ago
  You laugh, but it's a real problem. In this case: a WP claim that Stoll was dead would quickly fall to the lack of reliable sources indicating his death; naturally, there's a WP policy for this.
KingFelix 6mo ago
Sounds a bit like a Philip K Dick story

CliffStoll 6mo ago

I've gone out of my way to not read my wikipedia page. Beyond this, there's a rule (suggestion??) that you not edit your own biographical page. As a result, I have no idea whether things are right, wrong, misguided, or kflooey on that page. Anyone who wants to know details can simply stop over here for coffee and a chat. Cheers, -Cliff

croemer 6mo ago
You can suggest changes on the talk page. > Wikipedia provides a structured process for subjects to suggest changes without directly editing articles. The mechanism centers on the article's "talk page", a discussion area attached to every Wikipedia entry where editors coordinate improvements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_a_page_about_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_a_page_about...
- CliffStoll 6mo ago
  Aah - thank you. Maybe I'll check it out. When I have free time. Uh right... Cheers, -Cliff
simonebrunozzi 6mo ago
> Anyone who wants to know details can simply stop over here for coffee and a chat. Amazing. Cliff, I've never met you, but I'm sure you're a great guy.

gjm11 6mo ago

In case anyone is taking this subthread too seriously: C.S.'s Wikipedia page does not in fact claim that he is dead, and its most recent update was in December 2025. Whatever rumours of his death may be circulating, they do not appear to have infected Wikipedia.

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]