I am a big fan of
Wikipedia. It's surely the biggest advance in
research and knowledge since the invention of the printing press. Which
makes we wonder why the universities don't support it financially. How
about one dollar per student per year for starters?
there is a problem. If you have the
courage to criticize the strong for
attacking the weak, the strong will attack you back. For this reason, anonymous climate deniers
and their side-kicks, probably financed directly or indirectly by the fossil
fuel industry, have been vandalizing my Wikipedia
pages for years. I guess they are also regularly
vandalizing any Wikipedia page that addresses climate change.
But that is no reason to stop reading Wikipedia. The problem is under
control. Below are some extracts from the
Wikipedia page called
"Biographies of Living People". Like everything else in Wikipedia,
these guidelines emerged from collaboration between many anonymous
users, so a lot of thought and expertise went into them.
living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the
greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance
of original research.
Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently
deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the
material is negative, positive, neutral, or just
questionable—should be removed immediately and without
waiting for discussion.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job
to be sensationalist.
writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including
every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is
well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a
version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of
particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose
notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's
actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in
a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.
living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted
by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must
seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting
that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having
committed one, unless a conviction is secured.
has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political,
social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the
subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and
to Wikipedia itself.
contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons. From
both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined
effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material
from these articles, but these concerns must be balanced against other
concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's
favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject
objects to it, or allowing articles about non-notable publicity-seekers
to be retained.
should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of
biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.
My special request for people reading my Wikipedia pages: If you notice
something that contradicts the above guidelines, please delete or
revise it. Anyone can edit Wikipedia! I could do it myself, but I don't
believe that is good Wikipractice.
Further information in English: link link
Further information in German: link