4 ms·

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 5mo 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

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 5mo 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