The Wikipedia AIDS Victim List: Delete or Keep?

[Matty the Damned]

Wikipedia has an article listing supposedly notable people who have HIV infection.

Naturally this list is a target for vandals who like to add indiscriminate names to the list to make mischief.

The article is currently being considered for deletion via the standard WP process.

I think it's important that HIV positive people have a say in this. Should Wikipedia have such a list? If so, why? If not, why not?

I encourage all pozzies to register an account with Wikipedia (if you don't already have one) and have your say in this discussion.

MtD

[GSOgymrat]

Hmm... I'm not a big Wiki reader but my initial thoughts are that this list needs to be accurate and protected. Also I think such a list would be of interest to people, just like if I was writing a paper about ALS it would be helpful to have a list of notable people who have the disease. I think the argument that the list shouldn't exist because people "deserve privacy" just reinforces the stigma of HIV.

[Inchlingblue]

When I was first diagnosed I saw the list and it gave me comfort. If I remember correctly the list also included those who had died due to their HIV. I saw someone on the list who I briefly knew and had forgotten she had died of AIDS-related causes, Ilka Tanya Payan.

I guess I should sign up for wikipedia so I can officially say that I think as long as it's a matter of public record that the person in question has HIV then it's fine. As opposed to proclaiming someone has HIV as a matter of conjecture or rumor. These people may be, as Matty states, "supposedly" notable but they shouldn't "supposedly" have HIV.

Since wikipedia entries require sources, it should all work out nicely.

[zach]

i'm not famous or anything, so i doubt i'll be on the list, but who decides what names are posted? even if the death was aids related, does having a name added to the wiki list lessen or worsen the social stigma? to me, this doesn't feel like the circle of friends, it feels salacious to me

[Matty the Damned]

i'm not famous or anything, so i doubt i'll be on the list, but who decides what names are posted? even if the death was aids related, does having a name added to the wiki list lessen or worsen the social stigma? to me, this doesn't feel like the circle of friends, it feels salacious to me

Wikipedia has incredibly complicated policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to what are called Biographies of Living Persons.

As Inchie notes assertions made in WP are required to be sourced, but very often they are not. WP generally does not permit the use of primary sources, preferring instead secondary sources. The latter can be hard to find.

If a poz someone is notable enough to have an article there, shouldn't their HIV status be part of their article, appropriately referenced and in context rather than appearing on some grim list?

These sorts of lists are frequent points of violent disagreement at Wikipedia. What particular value does such a list have? 

If people do participate in the discussion at WP, they should be aware that it's not a vote. The idea is that one should present a well rounded argument which reflects with WP policies and guidelines. This, however, is often not the case.

MtD

[odyssey]

Since wikipedia entries require sources, it should all work out nicely.

Actually, anyone can create an account an add a name to that list whether they provide a source or not. All that will happen if it doesn't contain citations is there will be a statement saying so and little question marks at the ends of sentences needing references.

Someone pulling a prank or being just downright nasty could easily put a person's name on the list to cause trouble. It might get edited out eventually, but the damage could already be done.

An entry like that needs moderation and restrictions so posts are screened for veracity.

[Matty the Damned]

Actually, anyone can create an account an add a name to that list whether they provide a source or not. All that will happen if it doesn't contain citations is there will be a statement saying so and little question marks at the ends of sentences needing references.

Someone pulling a prank or being just downright nasty could easily put a person's name on the list to cause trouble. It might get edited out eventually, but the damage could already be done.

An entry like that needs moderation and restrictions so posts are screened for veracity.

Yeah, the famous [citation required] note.

Strictly speaking the policy on biographies of living people requires that such uncited edits be reverted immediately, but it often doesn't happen or takes some time before a patrolling editor finds the edit and fixes it.

In fairness to WP, the list in question has been semi-protected meaning that anonymous editors (those without accounts) and newly created accounts cannot edit the article.

MtD

[zach]

"Wikipedia has incredibly complicated policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to what are called Biographies of Living Persons."

thats not what this list is though, do those same guidelines apply to the departed as well?

[Matty the Damned]

"Wikipedia has incredibly complicated policies and guidelines, particularly when it comes to what are called Biographies of Living Persons."

thats not what this list is though, do those same guidelines apply to the departed as well?

The list in question contains the names of numerous living people, some of whom are known to us here. So yes, WP:BLP applies to that list. Dead people are not covered by WP:BLP. There is a suggestion in the deletion discussion that the list be converted to "People Who Have Died from AIDS".

MtD