This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself (or paying someone else to do so), other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact.
Writing anautobiography on Wikipedia is an example ofconflict-of-interest editing and isstrongly discouraged. You should only edit a biography about yourself if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of ourbiography of living persons policy. Edit requests are recommended as an alternative to direct editing for other changes if an article already exists.
Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy, and neutrality of such articles.[1] Avoiding such editing keeps Wikipedianeutral and helps avoid pushing a particular point of view. Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography, and there are many pitfalls.
If you have been published elsewhere on a topic, we welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please acknowledge and minimize your biases while enriching the Wikipedia readers' knowledge. Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely bedeleted.
It is said thatZaphod Beeblebrox'sbirth was marked by earthquakes, tidal waves, tornadoes, firestorms, the explosion of three neighbouring stars, and, shortly afterwards, by the issuing of over six and three quarter million writs for damages from all of the major landowners in his Galactic sector. However, the only person by whom this is said is Beeblebrox himself, and there are several possible theories to explain this.
The quote above illustrates a number of fundamental problems with autobiographies:
They are often biased,usually positively. People will write overly positive impressions of themselves, and often present opinions as facts. Wikipedia aims to avoid presenting opinions as facts.Neutral point of view doesnot simply mean writing in thethird person.
They are often unverifiable. If the only source for a particular fact about you isyourself, readers cannot verify it.Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. For example, unverifiable autobiographical claims are often made about one's internal thoughts, including one's feelings, hopes, dreams, and aspirations. There is no way for readers to verify what you think—a verifiable claim may result from a secondary source reporting on you expressing your thoughts publicly. In some circumstances,you can be cited as a source for material about yourself that is not unduly self-serving or about other people. However, an articlecannot be based on such sources.
They can containoriginal research. People often include information in autobiographies that has never been published before, or is the result of first-hand knowledge. In order to verify information of this kind, readers would need to perform their own original research. Wikipedia does not distribute previously unpublished information, nor does itpermit original research.
Upon some ofCato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."
Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797)
If your life and achievements are verifiable and genuinely notable, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later, but creating an articleabout yourself isstrongly discouraged: we want biographies here, not autobiographies.
Independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability; it is natural for people to exaggerate in writing about themselves.
There is the danger that, should the article be vandalised, there will be no interested editors watching and the vandalism may remain uncorrected for long periods.
Self-created articles are oftennominated for deletion, and comments in the ensuing discussions are often most uncomplimentary. Many editors feel that persons who create autobiographies are exploiting a volunteer project for their own aggrandizement.
Anything you submit will be edited mercilessly to make itneutral.Many autobiographical articles have become a source of dismay to their original authors after a period of editing by the community, and in several instances their original authors have asked that they be deleted. If you are alow-profile individual, suchrequests are more likely to be honoured. Biographies about public figures are incredibly unlikely to be deleted.
If you really think that you can meet the inclusion criteria, andif you are willing to accept that your article must be neutral and non-promotional, then submit adraft to atArticles for Creation (AfC) instead of creating an article directly. AfC provides independent viewpoints that may uncover or discover biases you were unaware of, and shows you value volunteer editors' time.
Drafts that you have paid or instructed someone else to write on your behalf should also be submitted to AfC. You should know thatpaid editors arerequired to disclose their employer and that they are being paid to edit. Be aware that there are also severalscams targeting people interested in these services. Paid editors cannot "protect" an article from deletion. Articles submitted to AfC are reviewed by volunteer editors who will never charge money to do so.
Why these problems exist
Your own neutrality cannot be adequately determined without external sources or analysis.Unconscious biases are commonplace and problematic in autobiographical articles, affecting neutrality and verifiability. It is also more common for new editors to be interested in writing autobiographies, which can compound issues already faced by their unfamiliarity with editing Wikipedia.
Even if you believe you can write a verifiable autobiography without doing original research, you may still not be able to achieve a neutral result. As a notable figure, you might emphasize objective data, such as the sheer volume of your published material, or the fact that your work has been translated into different languages or performed in other countries. Examples of volume or scope can create a non-neutral tone that is usually recognizable as deliberate self-aggrandizement. Likewise, deep biographical detail, such as details of your religious beliefs, the careers of yournon-notable family members, or the mere fact that you have famous friends may not be verifiable or relevant.
It is difficult to write neutrally and objectively about oneself. You should generally let others do the writing.
Contributing material or making suggestions on the article'stalk page is considered proper—let independent editors write it into the article itself or approve it. You can use thisthis process or the{{edit COI}} template to make the request.
You can also identify yourself on the article's talk page with the{{Connected contributor}} template.
If Wikipedia has an article about you, we want it to be accurate, fair, balanced andneutral—to accurately reflect thesourced, cited opinions ofreliable sources. If you believe reliable sources exist which will make the article more balanced, you can help by pointing other editors to such sources.
While it may be frustrating to not have your changes implemented immediately or at all, ensure you remaincivil while interacting with other editors. If others do not agree with the changes you propose, you may pursuedispute resolution. For instance, theBiographies of living persons noticeboard may offer a forum for impartial contributors to help resolve differences. If you are concerned that editors are acting against thepolicy for content about living people, you can go tothis noticeboard.
In clear-cut cases, it is permissible to edit pages connected to yourself. So, you can revertvandalism; but of course it has to be simple, obvious vandalism and not a content dispute. Similarly, you should feel free to remove obviously mistaken facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on. (Note it on the talk page.) If the information could have different interpretations, it is better to be cautious and submit an edit request instead.
If you havelegal problems with material in an article about you, please emailinfo-en-q@wikimedia.org promptly with full details. Butdo not postlegal threats on Wikipedia itself (articles, talk pages, noticeboards)—doing so is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules and will lead to you being immediately blocked from further editing until you withdraw the threat.
If the article about you has no photo, or you can supply a better one, feel free tocontribute one under a suitablefree content license. (If you did not create the photo yourself e.g. photos from promotional materials, make sure you have the legal authority to release the photo under such a license.)
