Apparently this is how things work now

[Midsize Jake]

An author got divorced, but her Wikipedia article wasn't updated to reflect this because the event hadn't been covered by a WP:RS.

So she tweeted this:

Someone (Dan Kois) saw the tweet and this Slate.com article resulted:

A Totally Normal Interview With Author Emily St. John Mandel

There is, in fact, a specific reason we’re doing this interview, which is that you have been having trouble getting Wikipedia to recognize your divorce. Can you tell me about that Sisyphean trial?

A long time ago, I want to say 2012, I gave an interview to Publishers Weekly where I talked about my marriage. So there was this fairly major publication wherein I’d talked about being married, and it turned out that worked against me when trying to get Wikipedia to recognize my divorce. According to a Wikipedia editor, I needed a comparable citation to get the change made on the page.

So my Wikipedia entry was essentially a time capsule. It bothered me that it was no longer accurate, but also it was kind of awkward for my girlfriend. I didn’t love that if her friends looked me up, they’d think she was dating a married woman. I needed an interview, and I knew it would be hard for my publicists to make a story happen in the last week before Christmas, so I thought, “maybe I’ll try Twitter?”

...And finally this happened.

It seems like there should be a better, or at least more efficient, way to do this — letting people correct their own articles, for example.

[AndyTheGrump]

It seems like there should be a better, or at least more efficient, way to do this — letting people correct their own articles, for example.

Or maybe, not creating biographies around minimal sources in the first place? Wikipedia insists that 'notability' is permanent, but accepts coverage in sources that are highly unlikely to follow the subject over their lifetime as evidence for it. 'Time capsule' biographies aren't just a side effect of Wikipedia policy, they are basically mandated by it.

'Letting people correct their own articles' doesn't solve the other recurring issue resulting from such 'notability' criteria - biography subjects who are so inconsiderate as to die without subsequent coverage in 'reliable sources'.

[No Ledge]

'Letting people correct their own articles' doesn't solve the other recurring issue resulting from such 'notability' criteria - biography subjects who are so inconsiderate as to die without subsequent coverage in 'reliable sources'.

Tell me about it. We've been looking for confirmation of the status of Georges Rivière (T-H-L) for months.

[ArmasRebane]

It seems like there should be a better, or at least more efficient, way to do this — letting people correct their own articles, for example.

Or maybe, not creating biographies around minimal sources in the first place? Wikipedia insists that 'notability' is permanent, but accepts coverage in sources that are highly unlikely to follow the subject over their lifetime as evidence for it. 'Time capsule' biographies aren't just a side effect of Wikipedia policy, they are basically mandated by it.

'Letting people correct their own articles' doesn't solve the other recurring issue resulting from such 'notability' criteria - biography subjects who are so inconsiderate as to die without subsequent coverage in 'reliable sources'.

yep. If you can't write a bio that's reasonably up to date about someone, it suggests they really shouldn't have an article.

Alternatively, you'd have to consider something like a "permastub" situation where you don't include a ton of details that are liable to get out of date without updates quickly.

On the flip side, this is a problem with lots of subjects outside of biographies, even clearly notable ones. A criminal case can drop from the papers and there's no information about final appeals, a media project might get off the ground and then get cancelled but no one even pays attention to it. The ten year rule is a good one to follow, but there's plenty of edge cases you have to account for as well. Realistically I think the best you can do sometimes is have a "this content may be out of date" disclaimer on the articles that likely are so old as to be erroneous.

[Mojito]

Necro-post incoming...

Firstly, I can't see how an encyclopedia has any business including personal details such as relationship status or number of children. It is completely irrelevant to her notability as an author.

Anyway, just thought I'd point out the initial edit request to remove the outdated marriage claim (note the evidence in the form of the divorce case number), which was smacked down by pigheaded moron rollbacker TJRC (T-C-L). Sure, WP:ABOUTSELF (T-H-L) doesn't strictly apply to this edit request, but I'd still like to point out that it's a useful protection, so of course it's frequently ignored on Wikipedia.

And a few weeks later, the editors decided to keep their skeletons in the closet (note that this incident received far more coverage than her marriage did when that was added).

While I'm being ranty, it seems that on the mobile version, there is no sign that the archived pages of a Talk page actually exists? And it isn't possible to get the URL link to a specific section of a Talk page?

This website is an enabler for emotional abuse of BLP subjects, it's disgusting.

[rnu]

Necro-post incoming...

Firstly, I can't see how an encyclopedia has any business including personal details such as relationship status or number of children. It is completely irrelevant to her notability as an author.

Anyway, just thought I'd point out the initial edit request to remove the outdated marriage claim (note the evidence in the form of the divorce case number), which was smacked down by pigheaded moron rollbacker TJRC (T-C-L). Sure, WP:ABOUTSELF (T-H-L) doesn't strictly apply to this edit request, but I'd still like to point out that it's a useful protection, so of course it's frequently ignored on Wikipedia.

And a few weeks later, the editors decided to keep their skeletons in the closet (note that this incident received far more coverage than her marriage did when that was added).

While I'm being ranty, it seems that on the mobile version, there is no sign that the archived pages of a Talk page actually exists? And it isn't possible to get the URL link to a specific section of a Talk page?

This website is an enabler for emotional abuse of BLP subjects, it's disgusting.

If you click/tap on "Learn more about this page" you get all the templates including the one for archives.

[Mojito]

If you click/tap on "Learn more about this page" you get all the templates including the one for archives.

Thank you. I will take a step down from my soapbox! (but not completely, because that seems like a pretty non-intuitive place to hide those details)

[rnu]

If you click/tap on "Learn more about this page" you get all the templates including the one for archives.

Thank you. I will take a step down from my soapbox! (but not completely, because that seems like a pretty non-intuitive place to hide those details)

It is extremely unintuitive. And the archives aren't the biggest issue. Warning templates like BLP and contentious topics are hidden too.

[Kraken]

The fetishism of BLP and COI (due to past scandals) probably caused this farce.

There is absolutely no reason why editorial judgement cannot be deployed to conclude that in scenarios like this they can update a biography based on a verified primary source, if prior editorial judgement concluded the material that is now out of date, should have been noted in the first place.

This person is obviously notable and it would be perverse to exclude basic biographical information like marriages and children. This is a biography after all, not an index card in a database of authors.

The only reason this doesn't happen is because it is incredibly difficult for people not familiar with Wikipedia, to interact with Wikipedia. And there simply aren't enough editors on Wikipedia, either in general, or with the right skills.

These problems are easily fixed if you have a community of volunteers who are deeply committed to ensuring Wikipedia is an ubiquitous and indispensable information source of knowledge and you have a Foundation with a trillion dollars in the bank backing them up.

You can, for example, create a big flashing button that says CLICK HERE FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE on every BLP page, and you can resource that function with volunteers who have passed a selection process assessing for aptitude and have then attended a certified training course that has equipped them with the skills and knowledge that an editor in the real world usually has.

Then you are in a situation where a person who has a Wikipedia biography can have their marital status updated without having to do weird interviews with Slate and indeed without causing them any confusion or distress at all.

Who knows. Maybe in time, the rest of the volunteers learn to make better decisions in isolation as untrained volunteers, simply by observing their trained peers achieving satisfactory outcomes.

Evolution. I hear Wikipedia is biased towards that, and against woo based systems of learning.

[No Ledge]

There is absolutely no reason why editorial judgement cannot be deployed to conclude that in scenarios like this they can update a biography based on a verified primary source, if prior editorial judgement concluded the material that is now out of date, should have been noted in the first place.

This person is obviously notable and it would be perverse to exclude basic biographical information like marriages and children. This is a biography after all, not an index card in a database of authors.

The only reason this doesn't happen is because it is incredibly difficult for people not familiar with Wikipedia, to interact with Wikipedia. And there simply aren't enough editors on Wikipedia, either in general, or with the right skills.

These problems are easily fixed if you have a community of volunteers who are deeply committed to ensuring Wikipedia is an ubiquitous and indispensable information source of knowledge and you have a Foundation with a trillion dollars in the bank backing them up.

You can, for example, create a big flashing button that says CLICK HERE FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE on every BLP page, and you can resource that function with volunteers who have passed a selection process assessing for aptitude and have then attended a certified training course that has equipped them with the skills and knowledge that an editor in the real world usually has.

Then you are in a situation where a person who has a Wikipedia biography can have their marital status updated without having to do weird interviews with Slate and indeed without causing them any confusion or distress at all.

Who knows. Maybe in time, the rest of the volunteers learn to make better decisions in isolation as untrained volunteers, simply by observing their trained peers achieving satisfactory outcomes.

I recently fixed a syntax error in a biography of living person Jenilee Harrison (T-H-L).

An IP editor recently drove by to make four trial & error edits to tell the world that her marriage ended in divorce two years ago.

I noticed this because I set up a system to patrol for {{errors}} several years ago, and those four edits caused a syntax {{error}}. I am still the only editor patrolling for errors on a regular basis. I may sometimes get some help with these; it's hard to know how much since I don't have a system for tracking when these {{error}}s are resolved, and logging who fixed them.

When great stuff is happening in your life, you want to tell the world about it. We have a "reliable source" reporting her marriage.

Jenilee Harrison, a familiar infomercial face who played Jamie Ewing Barnes on “Dallas” (1984-91) and Cindy Snow on “Three’s Company,” and her husband, Bruce Oppenheim, have completed a $1.1-million renovation and expansion of their Tarzana home. Oppenheim, a chiropractor to the stars, was once married to actress Cybill Shepherd.

The Tarzana home, a tennis-court estate on about an acre, was built in the 1920s. When Harrison, 39, and Oppenheim, 48, bought it in 1995 for $875,000, it had four bedrooms, a maid’s room and a guest house in about 5,000 square feet.

Now it is about 10,000 square feet with a new dining room, kitchen, 2,000-square-foot guest house, wine cellar, caretaker’s cottage and pool. The house has a federal architectural style reminiscent of Monticello.

When bad stuff happens, you probably don't care to tell reporters about it. I found a primary source to confirm that her husband had divorced her (and that the four-edit IP wasn't a vandal).

—————————————————————————————————————————————

I've thought about making YouTube videos documenting my gnoming work, and to train people who might want to volunteer to work for Wikipedia. I've heard that one can get paid by YouTube for posting highly-viewed videos, but I doubt there is much of a market for this, and I have no experience with making such videos, so there would be a learning curve. Maybe if I made one or two that I could convince the Wikimedia Foundation of their value, they might pay me to make them. I'm not photogenic like Jess Wade, so it would be hard to compete with her for viewers' attention. But anyway the videos I have in mind might not even show my face, except perhaps for short visits to "the booth" like they put NFL announcers on camera. Mostly the videos would show the field in action (by capturing my monitor's video) while the sound would be my voice-over commentary.

[Randy from Boise]

I've thought about making YouTube videos documenting my gnoming work, and to train people who might want to volunteer to work for Wikipedia. I've heard that one can get paid by YouTube for posting highly-viewed videos, but I doubt there is much of a market for this, and I have no experience with making such videos, so there would be a learning curve.

If you start a YouTube channel for the bucks, I'd suggest the title Fuzzy Kitty and Ralph the Dog Fix Wikipedia Syntax Errors (adorable!)

[rnu]

I've thought about making YouTube videos documenting my gnoming work, and to train people who might want to volunteer to work for Wikipedia. I've heard that one can get paid by YouTube for posting highly-viewed videos, but I doubt there is much of a market for this, and I have no experience with making such videos, so there would be a learning curve.

If you start a YouTube channel for the bucks, I'd suggest the title Fuzzy Kitty and Ralph the Dog Fix Wikipedia Syntax Errors (adorable!)

And videos with titles like "Fixing 20 typos, you won't believe number 12!"

[redbaron]

I've thought about making YouTube videos documenting my gnoming work, and to train people who might want to volunteer to work for Wikipedia. I've heard that one can get paid by YouTube for posting highly-viewed videos, but I doubt there is much of a market for this, and I have no experience with making such videos, so there would be a learning curve. Maybe if I made one or two that I could convince the Wikimedia Foundation of their value, they might pay me to make them.

Sounds like something the Growth team might be interested in.

[TheWordsmith]

Looking at the original issue, it never should have happened.

A social media post should have been valid enough to update marital status per WP:ABOUTSELF (T-H-L). Technically a divorce by definition involves a "third party", but it should be fine if phrased like "In 2024, $subject posted on social media that she had divorced her husband". If it got into "... after he had an affair", that would be a claim about a third party and not allowed.

[Mojito]

Looking at the original issue, it never should have happened.

A social media post should have been valid enough to update marital status per WP:ABOUTSELF (T-H-L). Technically a divorce by definition involves a "third party", but it should be fine if phrased like "In 2024, $subject posted on social media that she had divorced her husband". If it got into "... after he had an affair", that would be a claim about a third party and not allowed.

Agreed

[Giraffe Stapler]

I recently fixed a syntax error in a biography of living person Jenilee Harrison (T-H-L).

Let's take a look at how you "fixed" that. You added as a reference a site that lists court documents related to a divorce case. If one paid, they could access those documents. Without paying, I'm not even sure if the case is concluded. How is that a reliable, third-party, secondary source?

[AndyTheGrump]

I recently fixed a syntax error in a biography of living person Jenilee Harrison (T-H-L).

Let's take a look at how you "fixed" that. You added as a reference a site that lists court documents related to a divorce case. If one paid, they could access those documents. Without paying, I'm not even sure if the case is concluded. How is that a reliable, third-party, secondary source?

See also WP:BLP:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...

[No Ledge]

I recently fixed a syntax error in a biography of living person Jenilee Harrison (T-H-L).

Let's take a look at how you "fixed" that. You added as a reference a site that lists court documents related to a divorce case. If one paid, they could access those documents. Without paying, I'm not even sure if the case is concluded. How is that a reliable, third-party, secondary source?

See also WP:BLP:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...

That's just what the search engine told me. I didn't find any social media posts by Jenilee Harrison announcing her divorce.

[No Ledge]

I've thought about making YouTube videos documenting my gnoming work, and to train people who might want to volunteer to work for Wikipedia. I've heard that one can get paid by YouTube for posting highly-viewed videos, but I doubt there is much of a market for this, and I have no experience with making such videos, so there would be a learning curve. Maybe if I made one or two that I could convince the Wikimedia Foundation of their value, they might pay me to make them.

Sounds like something the Growth team might be interested in.

Maybe. But my sense is that the WMF's "growth" team has only been interested in the kind of "growth" that Quora's growth team wants.

I suspect that the only reason Wikipedia hasn't become the dumpster that Quora is is (yet, at least) that Wikipedia has a stronger volunteer community which has been able to more effectively push back against misguided "growth" efforts (cough, Wiki Edu) than Quora's community was able to.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I recently fixed a syntax error in a biography of living person Jenilee Harrison (T-H-L).

Let's take a look at how you "fixed" that. You added as a reference a site that lists court documents related to a divorce case. If one paid, they could access those documents. Without paying, I'm not even sure if the case is concluded. How is that a reliable, third-party, secondary source?

See also WP:BLP:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...

That's just what the search engine told me. I didn't find any social media posts by Jenilee Harrison announcing her divorce.

How is that a reliable, third-party, secondary source?

[AndyTheGrump]

I recently fixed a syntax error in a biography of living person Jenilee Harrison (T-H-L).

Let's take a look at how you "fixed" that. You added as a reference a site that lists court documents related to a divorce case. If one paid, they could access those documents. Without paying, I'm not even sure if the case is concluded. How is that a reliable, third-party, secondary source?

See also WP:BLP:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...

That's just what the search engine told me. I didn't find any social media posts by Jenilee Harrison announcing her divorce.

I don't think 'a search engine found it' overrules explicit WP:BLP policy.

And if anyone asks why such a rule should be necessary, I've encountered the following in BLP-related content, often multiple times:

* Court documents referring to someone sharing the name with the 'BLP'. but nothing to confirm they are the same person.
* Submissions to a court being cited as if they are definitive and factual.
* Court documents indicating that a trial is scheduled being cited to support a claim that someone was convicted of an offence.
* "BLP-person was sued for X in 2007". No mention that the case was thrown out immediately on the basis that it was complete bollocks.
* Ditto for 'charged with'. This is a favourite for BLPs of Indian politicians, most of which, if one is to believe Wikipedia, seem to have been charged with homicide, corruption, high treason, and/or not liking cricket at some point in the distant past. Charged with, a couple of decades ago. While I understand the Indian legal system can be slow (having been inherited from the British, and subsequently improved upon), I find it difficult to believe that it routinely takes twenty years to bring someone to trial for murder. The only reasonable conclusion one can reach is that the charges led nowhere, given the lack of any citation for a subsequent conviction, or even a trial.
* And so on...

Court documents are rich pickings for the arts of insinuation and spin, and perfect for getting things entirely wrong through well-intentioned cluelessness. If I ever see one cited in a biography, my immediate working assumption is that whatever they are being cited for is either outright misinformation or partisan bullshit.

[Hemiauchenia]

If someone separates from their partner and RS don't mention it, the simplest thing to do is just remove any mention of it entirely. Oftentimes a person's relationships are trivial biographical material whos excision doesn't really negatively impact the content.

[AndyTheGrump]

If someone separates from their partner and RS don't mention it, the simplest thing to do is just remove any mention of it entirely. Oftentimes a person's relationships are trivial biographical material whos excision doesn't really negatively impact the content.

If it has a source, it goes in. WP:NOTPOLICYBUTTRYARGUINGOTHERWISE.

[lonza leggiera]

I recently fixed a syntax error in a biography of living person Jenilee Harrison (T-H-L).

Let's take a look at how you "fixed" that. You added as a reference a site that lists court documents related to a divorce case. If one paid, they could access those documents. Without paying, I'm not even sure if the case is concluded. How is that a reliable, third-party, secondary source?

See also WP:BLP:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person...

That's just what the search engine told me. I didn't find any social media posts by Jenilee Harrison announcing her divorce.

I don't think 'a search engine found it' overrules explicit WP:BLP policy.

And if anyone asks why such a rule should be necessary, I've encountered the following in BLP-related content, often multiple times:

* Court documents referring to someone sharing the name with the 'BLP'. but nothing to confirm they are the same person.
* ... [etc.] ...
* ... [etc] ...

... [etc.] ...

In addition to all that, in the case of Emily Mandel, who was presumably divorced in New York, it appears that the only way to obtain a copy of the divorce decree is to contact the County Clerk of the court which issued it. While a copy of the divorce certificate can be ordered online, only Ms Mandel herself, Kevin Mandel, her former spouse, or someone with a court order are entitled to acquire one[citation needed]. Nevertheless, in my opinion, if Ms. Mandel were willing to provide the scan of a certified court record of her divorce to VRT (formerly OTRS), that or some similar option should have been available to her, and sufficient for her to get her Wikipedia article updated.

[Randy from Boise]

I prefer writing biographies of dead people. They don't get pissy if something is wrong.

t

[Mojito]

If someone separates from their partner and RS don't mention it, the simplest thing to do is just remove any mention of it entirely. Oftentimes a person's relationships are trivial biographical material whos excision doesn't really negatively impact the content.

Agreed. Many things in life begin with great fanfare but end quietly. An encyclopedia that doesn't recognise this will end up containing many errors.

[rnu]

I prefer writing biographies of dead people. They don't get pissy if something is wrong.

t

And barring unexpected things their biographies can be written in a way that is complete and stable.

[Kraken]

It makes no sense to remove things because the truth contradicts the encyclopedia but not add things on that same basis.

It makes you look like you don't know what you're doing. It suggests that editorial judgement is not part of what Wikipedia does.

And certainly in this specific case, as it will be in most general cases because these are biographies not index cards in a database, significant relationships and children are not trivial.

And if she is upset that people her friends might read her biography and think she was having an affair, it's reasonable to assume she would be upset if they thought she was deliberately keeping details of her marriage secret so that Wikipedia wouldn't mention them.

[TheWordsmith]

It makes no sense to remove things because the truth contradicts the encyclopedia but not add things on that same basis.

It makes you look like you don't know what you're doing. It suggests that editorial judgement is not part of what Wikipedia does.

And certainly in this specific case, as it will be in most general cases because these are biographies not index cards in a database, significant relationships and children are not trivial.

And if she is upset that people her friends might read her biography and think she was having an affair, it's reasonable to assume she would be upset if they thought she was deliberately keeping details of her marriage secret so that Wikipedia wouldn't mention them.

If this were someone like Britney Spears (T-H-L), her biography would be incomplete without content on her family and romantic relationships. For J. Random Journalist/Business owner/etc, it often isn't important especially when their spouse is non-notable and a low-profile person. Just because some listicle or local newspaper mentioned a spouse in passing doesn't mean we automatically have to include it. Many of our articles are filled with trivial crap that no reader would care about, simply because a source mentioned it at some point.

Like you said, these are biographies and not databases. We don't need to include absolutely every fact about a person. Our goal is to help a reader get a general understanding of what they're looking up, and there's plenty of room there for editorial discretion and respect for peoples' privacy.

If an article can be improved by removing content, then that content wasn't important in the first place. In 2005, the best way to improve articles was with a keyboard. Today, a scalpel is often better.

[Kraken]

A professional biographer would include details of significant relationships and children as a matter of course. Rarely does a person worthy of being written about by a biographer consider those details private. Those who do are quite rightly seen as a little odd by the rest of humanity. The people who buy biographies.

And a biographer is of course well capable of then deciding based on the specifics of their assignment, whether it is appropriate to be brief or go into detail. They use their own judgment and that of their editor.

Why is adapting this approach to subjects who are not and likely never will be written about by a professional biographer beyond the reach of Wikipedia editors? Why must they adopt a needlessly cautious approach to privacy or an indefensible definition of general understanding?

[Randy from Boise]

If an article can be improved by removing content, then that content wasn't important in the first place. In 2005, the best way to improve articles was with a keyboard. Today, a scalpel is often better.

There's truth here, particularly on really big, general topics, which sometimes have 35 people adding a line or a paragraph and start to resemble mansions constructed out of found wooden shipping pallets, cardboard, and dumpster divings.

I think I've went choppy-choppy on four pieces in the last couple months and they turned out better.

On the other hand, there are a crrrrrrrrrrrrrap-ton of stubs on Pomona College music professors and such that still need time and typing to be rendered into something useful.

But I do like your quote...

t

[TheWordsmith]

If an article can be improved by removing content, then that content wasn't important in the first place. In 2005, the best way to improve articles was with a keyboard. Today, a scalpel is often better.

There's truth here, particularly on really big, general topics, which sometimes have 35 people adding a line or a paragraph and start to resemble mansions constructed out of found wooden shipping pallets, cardboard, and dumpster divings.

I think I've went choppy-choppy on four pieces in the last couple months and they turned out better.

On the other hand, there are a crrrrrrrrrrrrrap-ton of stubs on Pomona College music professors and such that still need time and typing to be rendered into something useful.

But I do like your quote...

t

I also dislike how many perma-stubs we have just because they technically meet notability standards and will be defended at AFD. Like the thread about 600 Samsung phone permastubs, just because they should be covered doesn't mean they need their own separate article. What's the point of keeping articles on football players who played 2 professional games and has nothing we can say about them other than a table of game stats? All those articles (especially BLPs) are targets for vandalism, have long-term maintenance templates, and probably have very few watchers monitoring for BLP violations.

In addition to asking if a topic meets notability guidelines, we should also have a test for "Is there really anything to say about this topic aside from a few statistics or factoids?". If not, we'd probably be better merging into parent articles or lists that can be properly maintained.