వికీపీడియా:జీవించి ఉన్నవారి చరిత్రలు

వికీపీడియా నుండి
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Nutshell.png సంక్షిప్తంగా ఈ పేజీలోని విషయం: వికీపీడియా వ్యాసాల కారణంగా వ్యక్తుల నిజజీవితాలను ప్రభావితం కావచ్చు. అందుచెత జీవిత చరిత్ర వ్యాసాల విషయంలో మనకు నైతిక, చట్టపరమైన బాధ్యత ఉంది. జీవిత చరిత్రలు రాసేటపుడు నిర్ధారత్వం, తటస్థ దృక్కోణం, మౌలిక పరిశోధనలు రాయకుండా ఉండటం పట్ల అత్యంత మెళకువగా ఉండాలి.

జీవించి ఉన్న వ్యక్తుల గురించి ఏ వ్యాసంలోనైనా సరే రాసేటపుడు రచయితలు ఎంతో మెళకువగా వ్యవహరించాలి. సంబంధించిన సమాచారమంతా చట్టాన్ని అతిక్రమించకుండా ఉండాలి. కింద తెలిపిన వికీపీడియా నియమాలను తు.చ తప్పకుండా అనుసరించాలి:

వ్యాసం సరైనదిగా, సరిగ్గా ఉండాలి. [1] సరైన, నాణ్యమైన మూలాలను ఉదహరించే విషయంలో నిక్కచ్చిగా ఉండండి.. జీవించి ఉన్నవారికి చెందిన చర్చనీయాంశ విషయాలకు సంబంధించి సరైన ఆధారాలు లేని విషయాలను - అది మంచైనా, చెడైనా, సానుకూలమైనా, ప్రతికూలమైనా, లేదా కేవలం సంశయాత్మకమైనా - వెంటనే తొలగించివేయాలి. చర్చ కోసం ఆగాలసిన పనిలేదు. [2]

జీవించి ఉన్నవారి జీవిత చరిత్రలను జాగ్రత్తగా సంయమనంతో, సదరువ్యక్తి యొక్క ప్రైవసీని దృష్టిలో ఉంచుకుని రాయాలి. వికీపీడియా విజ్ఞాన సర్వస్వం, అదేమీ టాబ్లాయిడ్ పత్రిక కాదు; సంచలనాలు చెయ్యడం మనపని కాదు. వికీపీడియా వ్యక్తుల జీవితాల గురించి ఉత్సుకత కలిగించే వార్తలను వ్యాపింపజేసే వాహకమేమీ కాదు. అలాంటి వ్యాసాల్లో రాసేటపుడు, దాని కారణంగా జీవించి ఉన్నవారికి జరుగగల హానిని మనం దృష్టిలో పుంచుకోవాలి.

జీవించి ఉన్నవారి జీవిత చరిత్ర వ్యాసాలకే కాక, జీవిత చరిత్రలను క్లుప్తంగా చూపించే వ్యాసాలకు కూడా ఈ విధానం వర్తిస్తుంది. వికీపీడియాలో రాసే ఏ విషయాన్నైనా రుజువు చేసే బాధ్యత రాసిన వ్యక్తిదే. జీవించి ఉన్నవారి జీవిత చరిత్రల విషయంలో ఇది మరింత నిజం. అందుచేత తాను రాసే ప్రతీ విషయమూ వికీపీడియా విధానాలకు అనుగుణంగా ఉందని సదరు రచయిత చూపించగలగాలి.

వ్యక్తి మరణించినట్లు విస్పష్టంగా తెలిస్తే తప్ప, జీవించి ఉన్నట్లుగానే భావించాలి. (1898 కంటే ముందు జన్మించిన వారు ప్రస్తుతం మరణించినట్లుగా ఈ విధానం కోసం భావించవచ్చు.)


Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.

A statement of principles specifically related to such articles was resolved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board on 21 April 2009. The full text can be found at foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people.

Writing and editing[మార్చు]

Policy shortcut:

Writing style[మార్చు]

Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted (see #Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material).

The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral and factual, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Biographies of living persons should not have trivia sections.

External links[మార్చు]

External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links.[3]

Criticism and praise[మార్చు]

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, subsection headings should reflect important areas to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.


Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. Each article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag, and these facts must be sourced.

Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

  1. The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
  2. The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

Caution should be used in adding categories that suggest the person has a poor reputation (see false light).

For example, Category:Criminals (or its subcategories) should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident has been published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.


Reliable sources[మార్చు]

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. See Wikipedia:Libel.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Be wary of "feedback loops" in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material[మార్చు]

Policy shortcut:

Remove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects; or which is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory information about living persons should bring the matter to the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard for resolution by an administrator. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).

Self-published sources[మార్చు]

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.[4]

Using the subject as a self-published source[మార్చు]

Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published.

Dealing with edits by the subject of the article[మార్చు]

In some cases the subject may become involved in editing the article, either directly or through a representative. Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, a tolerant attitude should be taken in cases where subjects of articles remove unsourced or poorly sourced material.

When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this may be an attempt by the subject of the article to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:

For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake.

—Arbitration Committee decision (December 18, 2005)[5]

Presumption in favor of privacy[మార్చు]

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their 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.

Well-known public figures[మార్చు]

Policy shortcut:

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

"John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts: "John Doe divorced Jane Doe."
A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He denies it, but the New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation may belong in the biography, citing the New York Times as the source.

Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability.

People who are relatively unknown[మార్చు]

Policy shortcut:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.

Articles about people notable only for one event[మార్చు]

Policy shortcuts:

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

Privacy of personal information[మార్చు]

Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:

  • have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or
  • have otherwise been widely published.

Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth.

In a similar vein, Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.

Privacy of names[మార్చు]

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where:

  • they are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article; for instance, because:
    • they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals;
    • they are only named in a few third-party published sources;
    • although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offences and public outbursts); or
  • they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or
  • they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.


  • Gossip Magazine has reported that actor John Doe and his wife Jane have a three-year-old daughter named Booboo Happy Flower. In spite of the entertainment value of the name, this does not make the child notable in her own right. She is only in the media because she is related to Doe and for the novelty of her name. The fact that her name has appeared in one or more celebrity magazines, newspapers or websites may be an instance of self-promotion or scandal-mongering, and does not make her notable. Thus, her name does not belong in an article on John Doe.
  • Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected.
  • Following the arrest of John Doe's son, Doe publicly recants his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest may now be included in the article about John Doe, although his name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has still not become notable in his own right.

In all cases where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why this has been done on the article's talk page.

A note on marital status[మార్చు]

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name.

Maintaining biographies of living persons[మార్చు]

As a continuously updated encyclopedia, Wikipedia naturally contains many thousands of articles about living persons, both widely and less widely known. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible. On the other hand Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it.

Article improvement to a neutral high quality standard is preferred if possible, with dubious material removed if necessary until issues related to quality of sources, neutrality of presentation, and general appropriateness in the article have been discussed and resolved. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is sourced to good quality sources, neutral, and on-topic. However in many cases the appropriate use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of the biographies of living persons policy.

Semi-protection and protection[మార్చు]

Administrators who suspect malicious or biased editing, or who have reason to believe that violating material may be re-added, may protect or semi-protect the page after removing the disputed material. It is generally more desirable in the medium and long term to obtain compliance with this policy by editors, in order that the article may be kept open for editing wherever possible.


Policy shortcut:

See also the deletion policy page for more specific information.

Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion.

Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around the suitability of the page for inclusion – for example, if there are doubts as to notability or the subject has requested deletion – then this is addressed at xFD rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard. (Replacement might include a high quality older revision or high quality rewrite.)

The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the deletion to other administrators, by e-mail if the material is sensitive; administrators and other editors who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but any protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion.

Deletion of comments about other editors[మార్చు]

Pages used for legitimate Wikipedia administrative purposes and discussions, such as users' own user pages, dispute resolution pages, project and community pages, and comments between users, often contain opinions and observations by editors that may relate to other editors. Although applicable to these, deletion is not the usual means of addressing users issues on these pages, and leeway to allow the handling of editorial issues by the community should be allowed. For personal attacks and negative or disparaging comments against editors, see the policy no personal attacks which contains its own deletion discussion.

After deletion[మార్చు]

After the deletion of a biography of a living person, consider moving data to another article, but bear in mind that this policy applies to all pages of Wikipedia; never move material from a deleted biography of a living person as a way of thwarting the point of the page deletion. Also, when merging content from a biography of a living person, editors must preserve the edit history due to the GFDL.

Full information on merging, including how to do it while respecting the conditions of the GFDL and Wikipedia's copyright policy, is available at the #Performing the merger section of Help:Merging and moving pages.

Restoring deleted content[మార్చు]

In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material. Before adding or restoring material, the editor committing the edit must ensure it meets all Wikipedia content policies and guidelines, not just verifiability of sources.

If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible, disputed deletions should be discussed with the administrator who deleted the article. If the material is proposed to be significantly repaired or rewritten to address the concerns, then it may need discussion or may be added to the article; this should be considered case-by-case. In some cases users may wish to consider drafting a proposed article in their user space and seek discussion at WP:DRV. In any event if the matter becomes disputed it should not be added back without discussion and consensus-seeking.

Courtesy blanking of deletion discussions[మార్చు]

If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion (AfD) debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.[6] After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.


Editors who repeatedly add or restore contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced may be blocked for disruption. The blocking policy has full information.


This policy applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry.[7] {{Blp}} may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this policy. It also may be added to the talk pages of articles which mention living persons. Alternatively, if a {{WPBiography}} template is present, you can add living=yes to the template parameters. On pages with multiple WikiProject templates, the message can be added by adding the code |blp=yes to the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template.

For problems with editors editing in contravention of this policy, you can use these templates to warn them on their user talk pages:

{{Blpdispute}} may be used on biographies of living persons needing attention. {{BLPsources}} may be used on BLP pages needing better sourcing, with {{BLPunsourced}} for those BLPs having no sources at all.

Non-article space[మార్చు]

Talk pages

Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached.

User pages

The rules for talk pages also apply for user pages with the single exception that it is customary to allow the user to make any claim they wish about themselves without sources in their user space.[8] All user pages, must nonetheless, conform to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, ruling out their use as advertisements, for example. Editors are prohibited from impersonating another individual.

Project space

In project space, we maintain information about users that we need to make administrative choices. These pages are visible to everyone for the sake of openness and transparency, which is essential to the success and health of the WikiMedia mission. Usernames at Wikipedia are often associated with off-Wikipedia identities, and negative comments can be the source of difficulties, including legal problems. It helps both the people behind these identities and Wikipedia itself if this information is dealt with thoughtfully, carefully, and even creatively in edge cases. If in doubt about the appropriateness of publishing certain claims about living persons in project space, unbiased consultation is still important, but one should take care not to publish effectively the same information in seeking advice. Consider using alternative means other than on-wiki posting if necessary, such as e-mail, to discuss the issue with other editors, administrators, or the Arbitration Committee.


Upload and placement of images is subject to this policy, in some circumstances. Relevant content that is inappropriate in text form remains inappropriate in image form.

Information about minors

Children are discouraged from disclosing potentially identifying personal information, even on their own userpages. For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy.

Dealing with articles about the deceased[మార్చు]

Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines.

Dealing with articles about yourself[మార్చు]

If you have a query regarding an article about yourself, please see the biographical articles help page which covers how such matters are most effectively addressed, provides contact points, and advises on relevant important information. The most important points are these:

  1. Wikipedia has editorial standards and policies which will often help to immediately resolve your concern, many users willing to help if you are unfamiliar with these, and a wide range of escalation processes and means of support. But you need to know they exist and what they say (or where to find them).
  2. Wikipedia also has very strict rules on conduct (including politeness) and is almost entirely operated by volunteer editors who aim to help; impolite behavior even if reasonable will often be far less effective and may even lead to a 'block'. Please try hard to avoid heading in this direction! It is ineffective compared to seeking help!
  3. Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, or if disputed, there are "basics" that you will need to know if you wish to do much more, or make it easier.
  4. There are certain things you have a complete right to expect, and also things you cannot expect. It is important to understand these.

Wikimedia Foundation contact information[మార్చు]

The Foundation's postal address is:

Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
P.O. Box 78350
San Francisco, CA 94107-8350
United States
Telephone: +1-415-839-6885
Fax: +1-415-882-0495
E-mail: Infoen-wikipedia.png

Please see here for more information on contacting the Wikimedia Foundation.

ఇంకా చూడండి[మార్చు]

సంబంధిత విధానాలు
సంబంధిత మార్గదర్శకాలు


  1. Jimmy Wales. Keynote speech, Wikimania, August 2006.
  2. Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006
  3. Note that where the external links guideline is inconsistent with this or other policies, the policies prevail.
  4. From Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite_note-4.
  5. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude#Mercy: "3) Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, a guideline, admonishes Wikipedia users to consider the obvious fact that new users of Wikipedia will do things wrong from time to time. For those who either have or might have an article about themselves it is a temptation, especially if plainly wrong, or strongly negative information is included, to become involved in questions regarding their own article. This can open the door to rather immature behavior and loss of dignity. It is a violation of don't bite the newbies to strongly criticize users who fall into this trap rather than seeing this phenomenon as a newbie mistake. Passed 6-0-1"
  6. "...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden: "WP:BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article"
  8. see Wikipedia:Credentials and its talk page

Further reading[మార్చు]

వికీవ్యాఖ్యలో ఈ విషయానికి సంబంధించిన వ్యాఖ్యలు చూడండి.