Wikipedia talk:Divulging personal details/Archive1

I'm writing this in anonymised terms (i.e. the actual articles and people concerned are not mentioned) to avoid causing more potential damage than necessary. To find out the details, please check my edit history.

Recently I created an article called about an Internet personality. I soon found out — through hints dropped to me in private email communication with the person, and my subsequent research — that the name by which I and 99.9% of the Internet community, know him is a pseudonym. I also found out what his legal name is.

I also found some other interesting information; a legal case that the person had been involved in as a defendant. His legal name was included on the cover of the law suit. The law suit document (as a JPEG) was published on a website controlled by the person in question. I verified the authenticity of the document by requesting a copy of it from the American court which handled the case. I came to the conclusion that the article had to include the legal name in order for the information about the legal case to be verifiable, since it was brought against his legal name.

The same person is responsible for a web site, which he publishes solely under his pseudonym. In the article about that site I did not find it motivated to include the full name, since it was not directly relevant to the web site.

Is there a policy on when to include and exclude personal information? I asked the person whether he'd have anything problem with the legal name being published in Wikipedia and he responded that he "couldn't stop me". The pseudonym may protect from possible legal trouble, since some of the web sites that he manages are of a controversial nature. Therefore, the publishing of the name in Wikipedia can potentially be harmful to him. On the other hand, a determined searcher with a reasonable idea what to look for would not have that much of a problem finding the information I found. As I said, the information was published on a web site managed by the person in question.

I would like to request comments on this, with the goal of formulating some guidelines about what personal information may be included in articles and how pseudonyms should be handled. Please leave your comments below or on the talk page.

— David Remahl 22:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know the answer. But maybe different questions are worth asking. That is, maybe it not a matter of personal details but encyclopedic material vs. research material. Maurreen 14:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of the Wikipedia:No original research policy, but I don't think this amounts to that. It was just aggregating and interpreting some information, same as we do when writing any article. And the full name of a pseudonym is encyclopaedic information, IMHO. Because of this, I think I made the right decision based on existing policy. Ethically, someone may still be hurt by this, I'm wondering whether that should be a concern. — David Remahl 14:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another question worth thinking about is, what is the trade-off? Does the value of the information to the reader outweigh any potential harm to the subject? Also, this link might be useful. Maurreen 14:45, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be a concern. And with the little knowledge that I have of the case, I would lean against publishing. Maurreen 14:52, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If, as I think you are saying, the information is publicly avilable, and there is no legal reason not to publish, then I would say go ahead. We do not normally hide information on the grounds that some people would not want it to be published. There may, of course, be some over-riding ethical reason not to publish names (eg victims of crime etc). Mark Richards 16:04, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This seems like a very difficult decision. Based on the information you've given alone, I would say not to add it. Although the information is publically available, I based this on the following points:

• The information is difficult to obtain and verify, as you've demonstrated. Even detectives and spies often rely heavily on public records for their work, but the persons involved still feel that their privacy is violated.
• The majority of readers are liable to be rather apathetic about what the person's real name is, since they don't have any use for it. Other things, such as their town of residence or court cases they were involved in may be of more interest to readers, and more anonymous as well.
• When a person has a particular strong Internet persona, it may begin to diverge in nature from the person behind it. I would argue that identifying the person with the persona may create a false impression that the person acts the same way in their daily lives, while most of us are somewhat more reserved in face-to-face interactions.

For what it's worth. Deco 20:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My 2p — if this is verifiable, then I think it should be included. In a biography in a reference work, the inclusion of a person's name (or names) is pretty fundamental. — Matt 22:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I concur with Matt. If it's verifiable, add it; otherwise, it's just original research. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For a similar case, though over a much more famous person, see Talk:Katelyn Faber. anthony 警告 18:00, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is the most spectacular bushel of navel-gazing bullshit I've happenstanced across since I had the misfortune of reading a Susan Conant novel on a bus trip back from Northampton, MA. Hey, David, I heard that if you take a sack (there's tons of sacks over here!) and put a puppy in it (the puppy was just sitting there) and then throw it into a lake... the puppy drowns! It's not your fault, of course... the puppy was bound to be drowned in the lake with the sack lying so nearby. You're innocent! I'm glad to see this sort of gravitational morality is how you guide your life. I'm delighted that my list of things to do in Sweden just increased by a very solid number. --Jscott 05:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and one other thing... "anonymous"? How about "Click on the 'What Links Here'" link to the left". --Jscott 18:59, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, my thought with keeping the name off this page was to avoid it getting snapped up even more by Google. Anyone can find out what articles I've edited by checking my contributions, anyway, as I mention above. — David Remahl 19:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point is, weasel-boy, don't waste everyone's time acting like you made any goddamned effort to "avoid causing more potential damage than necessary". You made none; any actions you think you took were ceremonial. And each time I have to pay for your actions, believe me, you will pay five times as hard. --Jscott 22:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. Johnleemk | Talk 19:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bite me, Hall Monitor. --Jscott 21:32, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC?

Does this page still need to be listed at RFC? Maurreen 06:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing this from RFC. Maurreen 12:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)