Comments on: Vanity Wikipedia Edits

Question: Vanity Wikipedia Edits

kk — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:22:32 -0800

What is the proper netiquette for editing a Wikipedia entry about yourself? I just stumbled upon mine recently. Since it is written in the third person there is the presumption of objectivity. But then, it is my life, and I am the world's expert on it. What would you do?

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:25:54 -0800

i'd post a comment on the discussions page (see tab near top of wikipedia page) asking for corrections / modifications and outlining why.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:30:09 -0800

This question certainly puts the Meta in AskMeta. Don't worry about it, Kevin -- if you cross a line, the network will see your edits as damage and route around them.

By: Quartermass

Quartermass — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:32:38 -0800

Whoa...I am a bit starstruck. The Kevin Kelly? A Mefite?

I would say: Just change it, embellish, but try and maintain the third person tone of it.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:35:17 -0800

self link self link self link!!!!

Just kidding. Anyway,
wikipedia's wikiquette page dosn't mention anything about editing self entries. The only thing that would apply is Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.

It might be good to use your own name to edit the articles, my wikipedia name is my real name.

Out of curiosity Are you still happy with Wired?

By: Quartermass

Quartermass — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:35:17 -0800

Or... write it up, and email it to me and I will update it for you. Then no one will know except the millions of people reading this thread!

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:36:31 -0800

(the advantage of putting the comment in the discussion is that it is less likely to be lost in edits, so you don't need to keep going back to fix things up (someone else will fix it up for you). and, as a bonus, if you're - ahem - not that great at writing html then you don't run the risk of messing up the front page ;o)

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:36:44 -0800

First I'd learn to close my tags, and then, personally I'd be at it with a knife. The most reasonable thing you could do would be to post corrections to the discussion page (as suggested) or fix obviously incorrect facts.

The second best thing you could do would be to add information only. Removal of information would be percieved as censorship. Feel free to add information about the names of pets you've had, but don't delete the stuff about the time you "spent in Mexico"

By: Gyan

Gyan — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:37:10 -0800

In July, New Scientist published an article about a physics experiment which its performer claimed, invalidated the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM. A highly provocative claim. Wikipedia's entry on the matter and its discussion has many firsthand contributions by the said scientist. So doesn't seem like a verboten practice.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:45:28 -0800

Wikipedia meta page on auto-biographies:

"Some of us feel that even editing an article about yourself is best avoided, on the same principle. If you do so, please only add verifiable information and be especially careful to respect the neutral point of view. Noting objections or corrections on the talk page may be appropriate."

(The one on vanity pages is also worth reading, although it doesn't apply here since you're not a nobody.)

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:04:57 -0800

I updated their entry on MetaFilter as well as the page on me, only to post corrections.

By: fvw

fvw — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:34:07 -0800

Gyan: And the guy is a major pain in the lower regions of the anatomy, accusing people who try to make the article more neutral of being vandals and being generally abrasive. A great example of why, though you're not forbidden from editing stuff you're that closely involved with, it is a bad idea. If I were you I'd just drop a comment or two about inaccuracies or things you think need mentioning on the talk page.

Posting questions like this here or here will probably get you more knowledgeable eyeballs though, and would probably be more appropriate.

By: kk

kk — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:52:02 -0800

Thanks all. The Autobiography entry in Wikipedia comes closest to an official verdict. I like the idea of posting stuff on the talk page. That makes sense.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:24:01 -0800

Kevin, Roger Ebert has (apparently) edited the article on himself. I think it should generally be avoided (unless there's an egregious error, it's not all that important), but if you have a track record on Wikipedia making other edits that aren't challenged, it shouldn't be a problem if you maintain a strict NPOV, i.e. "Kevin Kelly is among the most innovative editors in modern journalism" would be a slight problem.

By: anildash

anildash — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:04:41 -0800

I have the same question about wikipedia pages that *mention* me. I think it makes sense I'm a l'il old stub page, but I've had disputes about some of the references to me on other wikipedia articles that I didn't think were accurate.

Not to derail Kevin's thread, but should that be a talk page request too?

By: fvw

fvw — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:48:51 -0800

anildash: Yeah, that'd probably be wise. If the page in question doesn't get enough eyeballs for it to be handled swiftly you could even post about it in the misc section of the village pump saying you'd rather not edit stuff about yourself but you are rather unhappy with a factual inaccuracy.