Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Signatures of living persons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inclusion in BLP policy

[edit]

See wt:BLP#Images of signatures. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t07:40z

Too many "tiny guidelines". Better to be added as one sentence to WP:BLP and discussed on its talk page. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with FT2; no need for a specific guideline here. Let's discuss the details at the WT:BLP page (and WP:VPP). We can redirect this title to the appropriate section of WP:BLP. TheFeds 19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it and think Fences and windows is creating something worthwhile and informative and we should take a look when it is formed. The issue of signatures is rampant and out of control and is in need of something detailed to help users understand the issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm done expanding and tweaking for now. IANAL, so take this all with a pinch of salt. Fences&Windows 20:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with any proposal to mandate removal of signatures if subjects complain. For some subjects, where the signature played some significant role in their life, the signature is not frivolous decoration, and adds substantially to the article's educational value. For example, they may have been at some point defrauded and their signature was relevant to the prosecution. Nobody should have veto power over such a signature. Dcoetzee 21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you expecting issues like that to affect many articles (BLPs) are there some examples you can think of? I think that living people who have a signature that is well out there in the public domain would never ask for removal. Have you seen the other discussion at the pump all related to the request from the green party to remove the signatures from their politicians articles? Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any concrete examples where I imagine the signature is particularly important, but I'm uncomfortable in general with the idea of anyone having "veto power" over any of the content of an article - if the signature is frivolous decoration, it shouldn't be included in the first place. If not, nobody should be able to force us to remove it. I would support providing a clear justification of importance for the use of the signature of any living person where such signature is not already available in widely-published sources. Dcoetzee 22:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would support adding that in the text also. Editors should provide clear justification of importance for the use of the signature of any living person where such signature is not already available in widely-published sources.Off2riorob (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a comment as per this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Removals

[edit]

Commons directs people to OTRS if they want them removed, perhaps we should try to do the same to streamline the process a little bit. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added link and comment regarding OTRS. Off2riorob (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dignity" argument seems dubious

[edit]

I think that interpreting the UN Declaration of Human Rights to be a manifesto for open-ended censorship is unreasonable. I know I've seen this argument elsewhere, but to me it seems as crank an argument as anything the American militias have promulgated. The call for dignity is a call for people not to be harassed and demeaned by governmental forces - like if the TSA sent you to a special locked waiting room at the airport with no bathroom access and offered public access to the live video feed. I certainly can't see it as a ban on copying signatures. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is wording we use at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues. It's also repeated on Wikimedia Commons. I didn't just come up with it de novo. It's not a ban on anything, it's a reminder to editors to remember morality when editing. It's too easy to intrude on privacy because we can. Fences&Windows 19:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think much of it there either. But in the hypothetical case I outline above, I can see why a public image archive might feel reluctant to be used in some pattern of government humiliation of a target group. Although when the actual case came up, as in the Lynndie England photographs, most organizations including Wikipedia choose to use the photos [though I see there is a sexual-censorship issue outstanding here though not Commons]. But reproducing a simple signature doesn't even conceivably lead to the humiliation (or loss of dignity) of a target person. So whatever your opinions on the larger argument, I don't think this belongs here. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to the wording, I put it together quickly. Reach for that "Edit" button! Fences&Windows 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

legitimate purpose of autograph exemplars

[edit]

Many people collect autographs - and many books show exemplars of actual, secretarial and auto-pen autographs of living people. For such people who use such (including almost all celebrities, political figures, athletes, astronauts etc.), there is no reason not to allow the specimens in their articles. If a person produces autographs which are sold in any substantial number, they have no privacy claim on the image <g>. Otherwise, WP would be stopping something which is of encyclopedic value to anyone collecting autographs. No policy which ignores this legitimate use should be adopted. Collect (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So edit the proposal to add this caveat. Fences&Windows 23:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this claim? An autograph of a living person is a hand written real thing, a tracing of a claimed autograph published through wikipedia is a totally different thing and what is encyclopedic about it? Why is it suggested that we have to publish tracings of claimed signatures of living people so as not to infringe on these users wanting this? I just don't get this issue at all. This is the comment I would like explaining, WP would be stopping something which is of encyclopedic value to anyone collecting autographs , what is encyclopedic value in a claimed tracing of an unpublished signature? and are you suggesting that wikipedia has a duty to the people that collect tracings of such things to publish such things? Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that multiple reliable sources contain such material, that the exemplars are found in scholarly works and other encyclopedias, on what basis ought WP be more restrictive than other tertiary sources and secondary sources? Clearly once multiple reliable sources have such, why ought we not include them? Collect (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple wikipedia reliable sources contain someones verifiable signature and the living person was publishing it there would be no reason to remove it, would there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The initial wording did not recognize that - so I emended the wording, which I am sure will be acceptable. BTW, I am prety sure WMF does not want "legal issues" being raised, as a matter of legal concerns on their part (recalling a letter from Mr. Godwin applying to an earlier talk pageon BLPs). Collect (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely"

[edit]

How is "widely" defined, when you say signatures must be used "widely" in reliable secondary sources? Isn't it sufficient that a signature is simply available from these sources? Wnt (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "widely" may be a problematic word - does it mean one source widely held by libraries is sufficient? That a dozen small books not held by any library becomes sufficient? Etc. I would suggest "readily" is more in line with WP policies elsewhere. Collect (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely" is avoided because it is ambiguous: does it refer to a single source with distribution on a global internet site or in print in over a a million copies per issue, or to at least two (or three) sources even it those sources are obscure academic publications, or behind paywalls? "Readily" applies to the former and not the latter. patsw (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All signatures are primary sources

[edit]

This page is misusing the term 'primary source'. All signatures, no matter how many times they've been copied, are primary sources for what the signature looks like. It is not actually possible for a signature to become a secondary source, no matter how the source handles it.

I realize that this is a poorly understood area, and that Wikipedia has done a particularly poor job of explaining primary/secondary sources to editors in the past. You might find it helpful to read WP:Party and person. In the meantime, rather than telling editors that they might misuse "primary" sources, I suggest that you list specific examples of inappropriate sources, such as credit card receipts, court documents, etc., that they should never scan signatures from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Some signatures (a very small number indeed) are found in secondary sources and can rightly be called secondary sourced. Examples I can immediately think of are John Hancock and Walt Disney, where the reproduction of their signatures is for purposes beyond the identification of the signature itself. I'll invent a term and call them iconic signatures. patsw (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The signature itself is always a primary source for what the signature looks like. It might be found in a source that is generally reckoned as a secondary or tertiary source, but every signature (and every reproduction of that signature) actually is a primary source for what the signature looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly, by this definition a quote in a book would be a primary source so could not be used as it is "found in" a source. The whole point of the distinction is that if an independent source reproduces a signature from a primary document, that's some indication that the signature itself is of importance. A signature simply lifted from a primary document won't be. WhatamIdoing is playing semantic games. Fences&Windows 21:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles about photographs and paintings. Those are primary sources. But we only have articles if they are discussed in secondary sources. Agathoclea (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agathoclea is right: Photographs, paintings, and signatures are all primary sources for what the photo/painting/signature looks like. If the photo/painting/signature/whatever is discussed in a secondary source, then that is an indication of importance, but that does not turn the object itself into a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on BLPSIGN as official policy

[edit]

Hosting images of living people's signatures

[edit]

Having no policy or guidance for Wikipedia hosting of images of living people’s signatures seems highly unsatisfactory to me. This essay only seems to deal with linking to these sort of images, and anyway it is only an essay. If you (not notable and without a WP biography) write me a letter and I scan your signature and upload it without your knowledge I have infringed no policy or guidance and the only recourse may be for you to request deletion. Am I correct?

From an ethical point of view this seems to me to be an invasion of privacy like uploading a photograph of someone taken in a private place as discussed at Privacy rights in the Image use policy. This is without regard to any security risk. Am I right in thinking that someone's photograph taken in a private place is deleted even if the photograph is declared to be free and is widely available? I am wondering about signature images on web sites without (reliable) information about whether the subjects have given permission.

Is there any support in trying to develop this essay into a guideline which gives general advice such as at present but which also includes stronger requirements against some rather limited types of unsatisfactory use of signatures? Would it be better to seek to change at WP:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights or even WP:CSD#F11? Thincat (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

d:Property:P109

[edit]

How to link this essay, so it can be accessed from d:Property:P109? Do properties on WikiData have a way of adding "guidance" about their proper usage? --Andrybak (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. PRIVACY
27.124.95.236 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This essay needs some TLC

[edit]

I wrote a tl:dr post here, but I have some concerns about this essay.

It provides the advice that the signature should be removed and the OTRS team notified, but it doesn't explain why the OTRS team should be notified. (The text was added by someone who has not edited recently so I cannot ask them.)

I initially guessed it was because of the OTRS role in verifying identity, thinking that we shouldn't be responding to an anonymous request to remove some information without verifying that the request actually came from the subject or their representative. However, if that guess were correct, then it would suggest contacting OTRS first, and only after receiving confirmation of identity from the subject, would the editor then remove the signature. Because it suggests removing the signature then contacting OTRS, it may be that the contact for OTRS is for some other reason.

As an active OTRS agent, I thought it would be obvious to me why OTRS is mentioned, but I haven't yet figured it out.

In the linked thread, it appears (but this is an inference) that the reason for contact was for rev del, but if you want rev del that's not the place to contact.

If the concern is identity theft, which is a very legitimate concern, the cure is removal of the image from Commons, not removal of the link to the image in the Wikipedia article. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to instruct Commons to remove an image but somebody ought to be coordinating with Commons to make sure our policies and guidelines are in sync, and if Commons agrees that deletion is warranted in these situations, this essay should be identifying how to request that deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying about Commons is someone else's problem. Of course an editor might like to raise the topic over there, but as I recall discussions, people here could not see an encyclopedic reason to include signatures in articles. There are the usual exceptions for where the signature might have been discussed in reliable sources, and for pages like Barack Obama where the signature and pens used for signing become objects of media fascination. I don't know why OTRS is mentioned, but one thought might be that if someone says "I represent John Smith and he wants this signature in his article", their request is non-actionable unless OTRS confirms it, which would require Smith to contact OTRS, and the query to OTRS would be to ask if such a request had been made. Even if confirmed, I think there should be a reason based on encyclopedic merit to include Smith's signature. There was a case years ago where an SPA got signatures from various places and posted them in many infoboxes. After much turmoil they were removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as commons goes, see c:Commons:Courtesy deletions and c:Commons:Courtesy deletions/2, which is basically what removing a non-copyright-able signature would amount to. But keeping the thing on Commons doesn't really raise big issues as far as I can see. I would expect that if someone is savvy enough to find it on commons, they're probably savvy enough to find it on the internet period, as it was originally found on put on commons. The "barrier to entry" for a Wikipedia article in comparison is much much lower. GMGtalk 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would add that the easiest thing to do here would be to add signatures explicitly to WP:BLPPRIVACY and largely call it a day. GMGtalk 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

[edit]

Why include a living person's signature on Wikipedia profile? This is utterly confusing and unnecessary. Classless not something I should expect from Wikipedia. NO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.200.34 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]