Wikipedia:Avoid self-descriptions

This is an essay on WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:ABOUTSELF.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: We should only include an article-subject's self-description when it is given weight by reliable independent sources; the simple fact that a subject described themselves in a particular way does not guarantee we should cover it.

A common argument on articles about controversial subjects is that we must include their self-descriptions; that we need to cover them in their own words, rather than those they characterize as critics. This argument is inappropriate, has no grounding in policy whatsoever, and should be disregarded in all cases.

WP:NPOV and WP:DUE are about weighing aspects of a topic according to their coverage in reliable sources; and WP:INDEPENDENT actually instructs us to avoid relying on sources directly affiliated with the subject. If an article's subject describes itself in a particular way or from a particular perspective, but that self-description lacks weight or meaningful coverage in independent secondary reliable sources, it shouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. The fact that it's something the subject said about themselves adds no additional weight to it whatsoever; a sentence taken from the subject's website has no more inherent weight than something taken from a random personal website. In fact, due to WP:INDEPENDENT, we must be more cautious about it, and more reluctant to use it, than we would any other random website.

If the subject's self-description has coverage in reliable independent sources, of course, we should reflect it in our article with weight and focus appropriate to that coverage - but no more and no less; the fact that it is the subject's own self-description does not give it an iota more weight and does not guarantee it even a single word. It's weighted the same way we would weight anything anyone else says about the subject, no more and no less.

WP:ABOUTSELF does sometimes allow us to cite an article's subject for unremarkable details about themselves, in situations where WP:RS would otherwise bar it; but it specifically forbids us from using this to cite anything unduly self-serving manner, which almost anything that comes up in this context will be. And even when something is not self-serving, ABOUTSELF merely allows it to be included; it does not require it. Even in valid ABOUTSELF cases, the WP:DUE weight of something the subject merely says about themselves with no secondary coverage will be extremely low; it shouldn't generally be placed in the lead or any place of prominence, and shouldn't be given significant focus.

Now, when people invoke this argument, the root issue is that they often feel the article is overly-critical, describing the subject the way its critics do. This may be the case, and if so it should be addressed by introducing independent reliable sources with other perspectives. But our role as an encyclopedia is to summarize reliable coverage; if everyone describes a subject a particular way, and only the subject themselves disagrees, it would be unduly promotional for us to privilege the subject's own self-depiction; we must reflect the focus of coverage even if it is critical or negative. Demanding that the subject's self-description be given the spotlight when no secondary sources lend it any weight is trying to create a false balance; if every reliable source says, for instance, that an organization is a multi-level marketing scheme, and they say that, no, they're an incredible business opportunity that will make you rich, we obviously shouldn't give that self-description the time of day.

See also