Wikipedia:What "About Self" is for

Wikipedia's Verifiability policy has one particularly tricky section that is potentially greatly misinterpreted by new editors looking for a loophole in policy to cite obscure and not easily reliably sourced information on a subject they care deeply about: the section titled, "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves", often cited with the shortcut WP:ABOUTSELF. For a refresher, it reads as follows:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as:

1. The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

At first glance, the stipulations of this policy may appear quite generous, especially to an editor looking to interpret the policy in favor of their preferences. "I can cite a Tweet, as long as the person who made the Tweet is talking about something they personally did? Cool!"

Not so fast. The ABOUTSELF policy has limits, and it can't be used for just anything; only uncontroversial, straightforward claims about the subject themselves, for which there is no plausible reason to doubt their veracity.

Additionally, just because a subject says something about themselves does not mean that their self-published statement on the topic must be cited. Sometimes the information just isn't that necessary or important. If you justify a citation with ABOUTSELF, it's best to have a strong case in mind for why you think the article would be worse off without the information it verifies. Reliable, secondary, independent sources are still required and preferred, and ABOUTSELF citations are meant to judiciously supplement their use as needed, not replace them.

This essay endeavors to list some broad examples of statements which, generally speaking, would and would not be okay to cite to the subject. Keep in mind that these are only generalizations, and specific circumstances may be more complicated and require a thorough editorial consensus on the issue. If there is or could be any reasonable doubt as to the reliably of the subject's statement, it is best to err on the side of not citing them.

Examples

If this girl tweets about her gender identity, that's probably good enough to cite for the statement that she identifies as a transgender woman and change her name and pronouns as appropriate.

• Example 1: "Joe Bloggs was born on April CY, 20XD."

Unless there is some reason to doubt that Joe Bloggs knows when his birthday is. If he has stated it online somewhere, it's probably allowed to be used per ABOUTSELF, as long as it is not contradicted anywhere else. A secondary source is obviously preferable, but for something simple like a birthday, a straightforward statement straight from the subject is YPerfectly Allowable.

Self-published statements from the subject on other personal attributes, like their full name, place of birth, hometown, or gender identity, may also be admissible. (Details on the status of a romantic relationship or marriage, however, may not be, given that this may involve known third parties and have the potential to be controversial, if, for instance, the subject had a messy breakup.) However, criteria #4 about the authenticity of the source must be considered: the statement should verifiably come from the subject, on a website or social media account that clearly belongs to them, either because sources have verified it, or another source they verifiably operate links to it. Be sure that it's not coming from someone impersonating the subject!

• Example 2: "Joe Bloggs is a member of the NERV party, and supported Misato Katsuragi in the previous election."

If this is in some way relevant to the article, it may be permissible to cite Joe Bloggs saying this. Joe, obviously, would be the one who best knows what he believes and what political parties and candidates he supports, so it's probably YOK to mention.

This can apply to other personally held opinions or beliefs as well, as long as the opinion isn't expressed alongside claims that are exceptional or involve others. However, consider the relevance of those opinions to the article, and check to see if a reliable source has repeated them before citing the subject themselves!

• Example 3: "As of January YY, 20XX, Joe Bloggs has resigned from his position at the Acme Corporation, due to his failing health."

You want to verify this statement, but there are no reliable sources indicating that he moved on. He has posted on Bluesky about his job, saying that he is no longer employed there. That's not a particularly exceptional claim, people change jobs all the time, and it's also not a self-serving one. Perhaps there's another reliable source saying he has gotten a new job, or perhaps it's simply obvious that he no longer works there because the Acme Corporation no longer lists him on their website, and lists someone else under his old job title. Mr. Bloggs' resignation, and his failing health, are events related directly to him about which he would know, and so he is a reasonably reliable source for these claims (although his health may not be worth mentioning per WP:NOTNEWS, unless it is relevantly discussed elsewhere in the article).

It can be safely assumed, therefore, that the Bluesky post is true, because there's simply no reason to assume that Mr. Bloggs is making anything up and no potential for him to have defamed anyone by saying it.

Therefore, the Bluesky post passes muster under ABOUTSELF, and it's YOK.

These two people are both accusing each other of having started this shouting match. If neither of their claims have been reproduced in reliable sources, then Wikipedia cannot acknowledge either of them.

• Example 4: "Prior to his dismissal from the Acme Corporation, Joe Bloggs was falsely accused of embezzling from the company. He has denied these allegations, insisting that he has been framed by Alice."

Here's where things get thorny. This claim might well be true- perhaps Bloggs was fired under these charges, maybe the accusation was spurious, and maybe Alice did frame him. However, even if this is so, a Bluesky post where Bloggs declares these things as fact is not admissible as a source. Bloggs has a clear, vested interest in leading the public to believe he is innocent. He may even have other motives, such as fabricating a story to make his former employer look bad because of a grudge he may have against them.

This post is not an admissible source under ABOUTSELF, because it fails two of the criteria: It involves claims about third parties (Alice, in particular) and also it is self-serving for the aforementioned reasons related to Bloggs wanting to prove his innocence.

Hence, the Bluesky post making these claims ✗CANNOT be cited, and unless these claims are stated elsewhere in reliable sources, they cannot be mentioned at all.

• Example 5: "Joe Bloggs, accountant at the Acme Corporation, claims that famous rock star Fred Bloggs is his second nephew twice-removed, and that their family relationship inspired Fred's newest hit rock ballad."

It should be clear by now why a self-published sources making these claims is not admissible- it's obviously self-serving, and it involves claims about other parties in events not directly connected to Joe. But furthermore, it should be considered that it is not particularly likely. Joe Bloggs, while he might be notable enough for an article, is not a celebrity. He is just a guy who has appeared in the news a few times in the midst of reliable sources covering the Acme Corporation. Fred Bloggs, meanwhile, is an international sensation with millions of fans and tons of journalists scrutinizing both his public and private life. You'd think that his entire family tree would be known by now.

(And if Fred and Joe are in fact related, and Joe is the only source, it's possible that Fred and other family members don't want the relation to be known, and so we probably shouldn't mention it even if it is true out of respect for the privacy of these living persons.)

So, whatever post in which Joe made this claim ✗CANNOT be cited, because it's an exceptional and dubious claim about a third party (Fred) about an event that Joe probably had nothing to do with (the rock ballad's composition). It violates criteria 1 through 4, all in one fell swoop.

But there's one more thing:

Can the subject be trusted to be truthful?

This guy may claim to be a distant relative of Paul McCartney, but just him saying that isn't enough to mention it in his article. If he regularly makes far-fetched claims such as that, that should be reason enough to doubt anything else he says.

Consider that last example statement. Suppose that Joe Bloggs makes a lot of far-fetched statements like those. Claiming to be related to one famous person or another, or to have inspired one particular work of art or development of a revolutionary idea or technology. Many may have been proven to be blatant lies, or just be generally regarded as highly unlikely.

If this has occurred often enough, it may be that any claim made by Mr. Bloggs is thrown into doubt by default, even if it would otherwise meet the criteria. If a person you are writing about has been shown to have a habit of telling tall tales, justifying citing them per ABOUTSELF may perhaps never be permissible (unless there is a reasonable consensus to do so in certain extenuating circumstances).

Additionally, even if the source doesn't have a history of lying, the context of whatever they said should be considered. If it seems to be a joke or is said in an ironic or sarcastic tone implying that they might not be being completely serious, it probably shouldn't be included without further clarification.

And finally

The fifth criteria, which up till now we've been avoiding, but is hopefully self-explanatory:

5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

If a majority of content in your article on Joe Bloggs is based on a bunch of social media posts or pages on a website he wrote talking about himself, the use of those sources ought to be cut down substantially. If, once those sources are removed, there isn't much of anything to say about Mr. Bloggs, then he probably isn't notable and doesn't deserve an article. In that case, Joe Bloggs's article may warrant removal. It may be redirected to the article on the Acme Corporation if he's mentioned there, or, failing that, deleted entirely.

In conclusion

WP:ABOUTSELF is not a free pass to cite anything said by an article subject, or someone connected to an article subject. It is a slightly flexible clause that permits citing article subjects talking about themselves, and only about themselves. If you have any significant doubt that ABOUTSELF is applicable to a particular case, it's probably not. If you're not sure, you should seek a consensus about the source in question on a talk page before citing it.