# Wikipedia Biography Correction for a Living Person

How to get a Wikipedia biography correction for a living person: sort each error, build the evidence, disclose, and use the talk page, noticeboard and VRT.

---


To get a Wikipedia biography correction for a living person, treat the page as a list of separate claims, not as one problem. Sort each claim into wrong, unsupported, unfair or merely unwelcome, bring independent evidence for the first three, disclose your connection, and ask on the article's talk page before you touch the text. Accurate, well-sourced material stays, however much you dislike it.

Many corrections fail for a procedural reason, not a factual one. The person writes to a volunteer without a source, edits their own page and is reverted, or hires someone who edits without saying who is paying. Each of those turns a fixable error into a dispute about the requester. The rules that decide this are Wikipedia's own: the policy on biographies of living persons, the conflict of interest guideline, the paid-editing disclosure requirement in the Wikimedia Terms of Use, the talk page and edit request process, and the Volunteer Response Team, known as VRT and formerly OTRS. Wikipedia's rules pages are community pages that change, and some of them could not be opened for this guide; where that matters, the text says so.

This guide is about the correction itself: how to sort the lines, what evidence a volunteer can act on, what to say, where to go if nobody answers, and what a representative may do for you. Whether a page helps your reputation, the full conflict of interest rulebook and the deletion routes are covered elsewhere and only touched on here. It is information, not legal advice, so read the live pages before you act.

<div class="box"><b>The short version</b>
<ul><li>Audit the page line by line. A wrong fact, an unsupported claim and an unfair emphasis are fixable. An accurate, sourced and unwelcome fact is not, by Wikipedia's own FAQ for subjects.</li><li>Disclose your connection first. Correct only minor hard facts yourself. For everything else, post a sourced request on the talk page.</li><li>Escalate in order: help desk, then a noticeboard such as the living persons one, then VRT. Wikipedia's own guide for conflicted editors puts about a week on each step.</li><li>Anyone paid to help you must disclose employer, client and affiliation. Undisclosed paid editing breaks the Terms of Use.</li></ul></div>

## Sort every line of the biography into four kinds of problem

Open the page and number the claims that bother you, one by one. Each claim falls into one of four kinds, and the kind decides the route. The first three can be corrected. The fourth cannot, and knowing that early saves weeks.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Kind of problem</th><th>Example in a biography</th><th>What you bring</th><th>Likely route</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Wrong</strong></td><td>Wrong birth year, employer, degree or title</td><td>An independent published source that states the right fact</td><td>Edit request on the talk page</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Unsupported</strong></td><td>A claim with no source, or a source that does not say it</td><td>A short note showing the source does not support the sentence</td><td>Talk page, then the noticeboard</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Unfair</strong></td><td>A minor episode given a full section, or a headline phrase the source does not use</td><td>The source text beside the sentence, and a neutral rewording</td><td>Talk page, then the noticeboard</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Accurate but unwelcome</strong></td><td>A true, sourced event you would rather not see</td><td>Nothing that changes the outcome</td><td>No removal route; consider context and updates</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

The fourth row is where people lose time. The [FAQ for article subjects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Article_subjects) says it plainly: if material is uncomplimentary but accurate and backed up by reliable sources, there is nothing you can do about it. What you can still do is check whether the emphasis is proportionate, whether newer sources exist, and whether the wording says more than the source does.

## What you may fix yourself and what you must ask for

The [conflict of interest guideline](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest) defines the problem as contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, your family, friends, clients or employers. Its advice for article subjects is direct: you should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, and you should disclose the connection when you comment on talk pages.

The guideline still lists edits a conflicted person may make. Among them are removing spam, reverting unambiguous vandalism, removing content that unambiguously violates the living persons policy, fixing spelling and grammar, and adding reliable sources, especially when another editor asks for them. The FAQ for subjects adds that minor hard-fact errors, such as an incorrect date, can be corrected directly, and that you may remove private details you strongly do not want shared, particularly if you are not famous. Anything beyond that goes through an edit request.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Rule</span>
<h4>If an edit might be disputed, do not make it</h4>
<p>Fix a typo or an obvious factual slip if you must, say who you are, and stop. Anything a reasonable editor could object to goes on the talk page as a request. A reverted self-edit puts your connection at the center of the discussion, which in our experience makes the next request harder to win.</p>
</aside>

The guideline carries one exception for serious cases. If an article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly, a conflicted editor may correct it, and should then follow up by email to the volunteer team. Treat that as an emergency exit, not a method. A statement you find unflattering is not defamatory by that fact.

### Disclose before you post anything

Disclosure is a single sentence on the talk page saying who you are in relation to the article. The FAQ for subjects tells you to disclose your conflict of interest before anything else. For paid help, Wikipedia's plain guide also names a connected contributor template for the affected talk page. Use an individual username: the plain guide says a username should represent you as an individual, not a company or organization, and the guideline says not to create a shared organizational account. Do not open a second account to look independent. Nothing in the rules we read allows it, and it would undercut every request you make.

## What the living persons policy gives you to point to

The biographies of living persons policy is the main source of your arguments, but its page could not be opened for this guide, so we do not summarize its sections here. Read the live page before you file, and quote the exact sentence you rely on. What the pages we did read confirm is narrower.

- **Conflicted editors may act on clear violations.** The conflict of interest guideline lets a conflicted editor remove content that unambiguously violates the policy. Anything arguable still goes to the talk page.
- **The noticeboard expects you to know the policy.** The living persons noticeboard tells posters to read the policy before reporting, and reserves the board for problems such as editors repeatedly adding defamatory material.
- **Sources must be independent.** Wikipedia's plain guide says articles should summarize what independent, published, reliable sources have said about a subject. Your own website, a press release or a social post is not that.

A volunteer who sees a precise rule next to a precise source can act quickly. A request that cites the policy loosely, or not at all, gives them nothing to act on.

## Build the evidence pack before you write a word

Volunteers handle many requests and act on the ones that are easy to verify. Prepare a single page per request, with the sentence, the problem and the proof, and nothing else. In our experience a short, specific pack gets a faster answer than a long, emotional one.

<figure class="fig">
<figcaption><b>The evidence pack for one correction</b></figcaption>
<ol class="fig-steps">
<li><b>Quote the exact sentence</b>Copy the sentence as it appears on the page, with the section name, so the volunteer finds it at once.</li>
<li><b>State the problem in one line</b>Choose one of the kinds above: wrong, unsupported or unfair. If you cannot choose, the claim is probably in the unwelcome category.</li>
<li><b>Attach an independent source</b>Use a published, reliable source with a link and date, not your own website, a press release or a social post. A court record, a registry entry or a reputable publication is typical.</li>
<li><b>Propose the replacement wording</b>Write the sentence you would accept, in neutral language, based only on the source. Never write praise.</li>
<li><b>Disclose your connection</b>State who you are in relation to the page, and if anyone is paid to help you, say who and for whom.</li>
</ol>
</figure>

## Post the request on the article's talk page

The talk page is the standard route. The FAQ for subjects tells you to make an edit request, preferably through the Edit Request Wizard, for changes that you may not make directly. Wikipedia's plain guide for conflicted editors says to post requested edits on the article's talk page with the conflict of interest edit request template, to base them on independent reliable sources, and to write so that your biggest competitor would think it fair and balanced.

Write the request as a short list, one change per item. In our experience volunteers answer faster when each item reads like an instruction: the current sentence, the sentence you propose, and the source. Keep the tone flat. A request that sounds like a complaint gets treated as one.

If the answer is no, the plain guide is clear: never implement the change yourself. Engage the editors in civil discussion and try to reach consensus. In our experience, focused requests work better than repeated ones. Read the refusal for which source the editor considers weak, then decide whether a better one exists.

## When nobody answers: help desk, noticeboard and VRT

Talk pages on quiet articles can sit unanswered. Wikipedia's plain guide gives an order for that case: talk page request, then the help desk or help chat, then the conflict of interest noticeboard or another relevant noticeboard, then VRT, with about a week expected at each step. For a biography the relevant noticeboard is the living persons one.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>Route</th><th>Best for</th><th>What to send</th><th>Limit</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Talk page request</strong></td><td>Wrong facts, weak sourcing, wording</td><td>Evidence pack, one item per change</td><td>Can sit unanswered on quiet pages</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Help desk or help chat</strong></td><td>Getting someone to look at an unanswered request</td><td>A link to your talk page request</td><td>Does not decide content for you</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Living persons noticeboard</strong></td><td>Policy problems in a biography</td><td>The article name and a link to the edit that shows the dispute</td><td>Not for simple vandalism or content that can be removed without argument</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>VRT email</strong></td><td>Serious legal concerns, private data, cases you cannot post publicly</td><td>"Legal concern" in the subject, and the article's exact URL</td><td>No promise of confidentiality</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

### How the noticeboard works

The [living persons noticeboard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard) says it is for reporting problems with biographies of living persons, usually cases where editors repeatedly add defamatory or libelous material over an extended period. You post by entering the article name and linking to a diff showing the dispute. Its own instructions say not to paste the defamatory information onto the board, and not to report simple vandalism or material that can be removed without argument. Sections older than five days are archived by a bot, so make your point in the first post and check back within days.

### How an email to VRT works

VRT, described on its [Meta-Wiki page](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Response_Team), is a volunteer group that has handled public emails to Wikimedia projects since 2004 and was formerly known as OTRS. The FAQ for subjects says that for a genuine legal concern you should email the volunteers with "Legal concern" in the subject line and the article's exact URL. The VRT page states no response time. It also warns that the Foundation cannot guarantee confidential treatment of sensitive information, and asks senders to be careful about revealing personally identifying information about subjects. The plain guide adds that VRT can most often give only general guidance and send you back to the community forums. Take the contact address from Wikipedia's own pages, not from third-party sites.

Use the email route where the issue is legal or personal, expect to be pointed back to the community for wording disputes, and keep a copy of what you sent.

## A realistic timeline from first audit to last escalation

These ranges are our experience with ordinary requests, not Wikipedia promises, and the one-week steps come from the plain guide. A request on a heavily watched page can be answered in a day, and one on a rarely visited page can wait for weeks.

<div class="tablewrap"><table><thead><tr><th>When</th><th>What you do</th><th>What to expect</th></tr></thead><tbody>
<tr><td><strong>Days 1 to 3</strong></td><td>Audit the page, sort the lines, assemble the evidence pack, choose the single most important correction</td><td>No contact with Wikipedia yet; this is the stage that decides the result</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Day 4</strong></td><td>Post the disclosure and the first request on the talk page</td><td>An answer within days on active pages, silence on quiet ones</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>About a week later</strong></td><td>If unanswered, ask for review at the help desk or help chat, linking the request</td><td>A volunteer may act, ask for a better source or decline with a reason</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>About two weeks later</strong></td><td>If a policy problem remains, post once at the living persons noticeboard</td><td>Experienced editors read the policy; the page archives threads after five days</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>Weeks three to four</strong></td><td>For legal or private-data concerns, email VRT with the exact URL</td><td>A reply that can be slow, with no stated time</td></tr>
<tr><td><strong>After any change</strong></td><td>Check the page history, then search results and AI answers over the following weeks</td><td>Search engines and AI assistants update on their own schedule</td></tr>
</tbody></table></div>

## If someone else helps you: what a representative may and may not do

You can ask a lawyer, a communications adviser or a firm like ours to help. What they can do is limited by the same rules. The Wikimedia Terms of Use, through an [amendment](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:TOU_Amendment_-_Disclosure_of_Paid_Editing) the Board of Trustees approved on April 25, 2014, require paid contributors to disclose their employer, client and affiliation. Disclosure can be made on the user page, on the talk page of the paid contribution, or in the edit summary. We could not open the current Terms of Use page for this guide, so check its live wording before you hire anyone.

For a biography, that means a representative may prepare your evidence pack, write the request, post it on the talk page with a visible disclosure, and respond to questions. The plain guide says conflicted editors should never implement changes by editing the article themselves, so a representative proposes and others decide. It does not mean they can edit the article quietly, ask a friend to do it, or use extra accounts.

<aside class="callout">
<span class="callout-label">Warning</span>
<h4>Undisclosed paid editing is the one route that always backfires</h4>
<p>Paid editing without disclosure breaks the Terms of Use. It also puts your name at the center of a dispute about the attempt, which is a worse position than the original error. If anyone offers to change your page without a public disclosure, or through extra accounts, decline.</p>
</aside>

Our own position is set out on the [ethics page](/ethics): we do not edit Wikipedia covertly, and we do not promise a result on a page the community controls. If the page shows up in search engines and AI assistants in a way you want addressed, that is a separate, lawful piece of work on your own pages and sources.

## A worked scenario: one page, four lines, three outcomes

This is an invented scenario with generic parties, to show the order of operations. A mid-career professional has a biography with four problem lines and no prior Wikipedia account.

1. The page gives the wrong year of a degree. A university record shows the right one. This is a wrong fact with an independent source.
2. A sentence about a past dispute cites only a blog post. This is unsupported.
3. A section called "Controversies" gives an old regulatory complaint the same space as the whole career, though the news source mentions it in two lines. This is unfair emphasis.
4. A reliable newspaper reported a regulator's finding against a former employer, and the page says the professional was involved. The source supports it.

The professional registers a personal username, posts a disclosure and files one request with four numbered items. Items 1 and 2 are likely to be fixed by the first volunteer. Item 3 is a judgment call, so the professional proposes shorter wording tied to the source and expects some back and forth. Item 4 has no route: the content is accurate and sourced, and the FAQ says nothing can be done. The honest step is to leave it and to note newer, equally reliable sources if they show how the matter ended.

The realistic result is two fixes, one negotiated edit and one line that stays. That is a good outcome. A request asking for everything to be removed would probably have lost all four.

## What happens after the page changes

A corrected page does not change search results by itself. Search engines and AI assistants refresh on their own schedule and may show an old snippet for a while. Check the live page first, then the results for your name over the following weeks. Sites that copied the old text are separate problems with separate owners. Our [AI search reputation](/ai-search-reputation) page describes how we review what assistants say about a name.

## The next step if the page is wrong now

<div class="box hot"><b>If this is happening to you now</b>
<p>Do not edit the page, do not ask anyone to edit it for you, and do not email a volunteer without a source. Make a list of the lines that bother you, sort them into wrong, unsupported, unfair and unwelcome, and attach one independent source to each of the first three. If you want a second pair of eyes on that list before you post, <a href="/audit">request a private audit</a>.</p></div>

Reputation Partners can review your list, point out the lines the policy will not move, and prepare a disclosed request for you to post or approve. We cannot promise what the community will decide, and we will tell you when a line has no route.

## Questions people ask

### Can I correct my own Wikipedia biography?

Only in narrow cases. The conflict of interest guideline discourages editing about yourself, though it permits minor corrections such as spelling, removing clear vandalism and removing content that clearly breaks the living persons policy. Disclose your connection and stop there. Everything else should go to the talk page as a sourced request, because a disputed self-edit is usually reverted.

### Can I ask Wikipedia to delete my biography?

The FAQ for subjects says Wikipedia generally aims to improve articles rather than delete them, and that calling an article bad, inaccurate, biased or badly written is not reason enough for deletion. Do not plan around deletion. Correct the specific lines first, because that is the route the community answers fastest.

### How long does a correction take?

It varies with how many editors watch the page. Wikipedia's plain guide for conflicted editors expects about a week at each step: talk page, then the help desk, then a noticeboard, then VRT. An easy fix with a clear source can be done in days. A contested emphasis can take weeks and may end in a compromise.

### Does the volunteer team change the article for me?

Not as a rule. VRT handles emails from the public. The FAQ for subjects points genuine legal concerns there, but the plain guide says VRT can most often give only general guidance and send you back to the community forums. For wording disputes, expect the talk page. Include the exact article URL, avoid personal details you do not want stored, and keep your own copy.

### Can a lawyer or agency edit the page for me?

A representative can prepare and post a request, but paid contributors must disclose employer, client and affiliation under the Terms of Use. Wikipedia's plain guide says conflicted editors should propose changes on the talk page, not edit the article themselves. Anyone who offers undisclosed edits, extra accounts or a friend to do it is offering something that breaks the rules and exposes you.

### What if the biography is accurate but hurts my reputation?

Then there is no removal route, and the FAQ says so. You can check whether the emphasis is proportionate, whether the sources are reliable and whether newer sources show a different outcome. Outside Wikipedia, you can build accurate pages of your own that give searchers the context you control.