14 Apr 2026
Imagine spending hours drafting a detailed page about a local business leader or a rising indie musician, only to have it deleted within minutes. For many new editors, this is a rite of passage. The reason is usually a breach of the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. On Wikipedia, writing about someone who is still alive is a high-stakes game. One wrong word or a missing citation doesn't just result in a 'cleanup' tag; it can lead to a permanent ban for the editor and a massive legal headache for the foundation. Why? Because the line between a neutral encyclopedia entry and a defamatory attack is incredibly thin when the subject can actually read it and feel the impact on their career.
Quick Summary of BLP Essentials
- Sourcing is Non-Negotiable: Every claim about a living person must be backed by a reliable, independent source.
- Neutral Point of View: Avoid judgmental language; stick to what can be proven via third-party reports.
- Presumption of Good Faith: Assume editors aren't trying to be malicious, but hold the standard for evidence high.
- Immediate Removal: Uncited derogatory claims are removed immediately, regardless of whether they are true.
The Core Philosophy: Protection Over Accuracy
Most people think Wikipedia is all about getting the facts right. While that's true, the BLP policy prioritizes the protection of the subject over the pursuit of a "complete" truth. If you have a piece of information that is 100% true-say, you know for a fact that a politician once cheated on a test in high school-but you can't find a reliable, published source for it, you cannot put it on the page. This is a critical distinction. In a standard article about a historical event, an editor might leave a placeholder or a vague statement until a better source is found. With a BLP, that's a forbidden move. The policy is designed to prevent the site from becoming a tool for character assassination. If a statement is potentially harmful and lacks a source, it is considered "unfair" and must be deleted instantly. This isn't about censorship; it's about risk management. The cost of a mistake in a biography is far higher than a mistake in an article about a species of fern.Navigating Notability and Sourcing
Before you even touch the "Edit" button, you have to prove that the person is actually Notable. In the world of Wiki-governance, notability isn't about being famous or well-liked; it's about whether enough reliable sources have written about the person independently. If the only sources you have are the person's own LinkedIn profile, a press release they wrote, or a few mentions in a local newsletter, they probably aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. You need "significant coverage" in sources that are independent of the subject. For example, a profile in the New York Times or a detailed analysis in a peer-reviewed journal counts. A mention in a "Top 10 CEOs to Watch" listicle usually doesn't.| Source Type | Value for BLP | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Sources | Low (Use for basics only) | Personal blogs, Official websites, Interviews |
| Secondary Sources | High (The Gold Standard) | Major newspapers, Academic books, Magazines |
| Tertiary Sources | Medium (Use for context) | Other encyclopedias, Textbooks |
| User-Generated | Very Low/Forbidden | Social media posts, Reddit threads, Forums |
Dealing with Controversies and Negative Information
This is where most editors get into trouble. You might find a court document or a news report about a subject's legal troubles and think, "This is a fact, so it belongs here." Not so fast. The BLP policy requires that negative information be handled with extreme care to avoid "undue weight." If a person has a 30-year career of winning awards and one single arrest for a misdemeanor 15 years ago, dedicating a whole section to that arrest is a violation of the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. The negative information should be proportional to the rest of the person's life. If the controversy is what made them famous-like a disgraced politician-then it's a central part of the story. If it's a side note, treat it as one. Furthermore, avoid using "loaded" words. Instead of saying "The subject's disastrous attempt to start a company," say "The company failed after two years." Let the facts speak for themselves. When you use adjectives like "disastrous," you are providing an opinion, not a fact, and that's a fast track to getting your edits reverted.
The Danger of Original Research
One of the biggest pitfalls in writing BLPs is Original Research. This happens when an editor connects two dots that haven't been connected by a reliable source. For instance, imagine you find a source saying "Person A was at the meeting" and another source saying "The meeting resulted in an illegal deal." If you write, "Person A participated in an illegal deal," you have just created original research. You've made a logical leap. Even if you are 99% sure you're right, Wikipedia forbids this for living persons. The source must explicitly state that Person A participated in the illegal deal. If the source doesn't say it, you can't say it.Handling Conflict of Interest (COI)
Are you writing about your boss, your spouse, or yourself? Stop. While Wikipedia doesn't strictly forbid people from writing about their associates, it strongly discourages it. This is known as a Conflict of Interest. When you have a personal connection to the subject, it is almost impossible to remain neutral. You'll either try to make them look like a saint (puffery) or, in the case of a bad breakup, try to ruin their reputation. If you must contribute, the best path is to use the "Talk" page. Propose the change there, provide the sources, and let an independent editor-someone with no skin in the game-be the one to actually update the article. This keeps the process transparent and protects you from being accused of promoting the subject.
Common BLP Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them
Many editors fail because they treat a biography like a resume. A resume is meant to highlight achievements; a Wikipedia article is meant to provide a balanced overview.- Avoid "Puffery": Words like "visionary," "renowned," "expert," or "pioneering" are usually fluff. Unless those exact words are used in a quote from a reliable source, cut them.
- Check Your Dates: Misattributing a date or a title to a living person can be seen as a lack of care that undermines the entire article's credibility.
- Don't Guess: If a source says someone "is believed to be" living in London, don't write "They live in London." Keep the uncertainty of the source.
What happens if I accidentally violate the BLP policy?
If it's a minor mistake, an experienced editor will usually just revert the change and leave a note on your talk page. However, if the violation involves adding unsourced, malicious, or highly defamatory content, you could face an immediate block or a permanent ban from editing. The community takes BLP violations very seriously because they pose a legal risk to the Wikimedia Foundation.
Can I use social media posts as sources for a living person?
Generally, no. Social media posts are considered primary sources. They are useful for verifying something the person said themselves (e.g., "I am retiring"), but they cannot be used to prove claims about the person's character, history, or achievements. For those, you need a reliable secondary source like a news organization or a biography.
Is it okay to include a 'Controversies' section?
Yes, but only if the controversy is well-documented by reliable sources and is significant enough to be a notable part of the person's life. If you include such a section, you must maintain a neutral tone and ensure that the negative information does not outweigh the rest of the article's content unless the controversy is the primary reason for the person's notability.
What is the difference between 'Notability' and 'BLP'?
Notability is the criteria used to decide if a person deserves an article at all (do enough people write about them?). BLP is the set of rules for how to write that article once it's decided they are notable. You can be notable but still have your article deleted if the BLP rules are ignored during the writing process.
How do I handle a request to remove information from my own biography?
The best way is to avoid editing the page yourself. Instead, go to the article's "Talk" page and politely request the removal of the information, providing evidence that the claim is false or that the source is unreliable. If the information is true and sourced, Wikipedia will generally keep it, but you can argue for a more neutral phrasing.
