Hacker News Reader

Comment by hoppyhoppy2 | Hacker News Reader

Thank you for the update, Cliff. I will update your Wikipedia page to show that your death is currently under dispute.

I've gone out of my way to not read my wikipedia page. Beyond this, there's a rule (suggestion??) that you not edit your own biographical page.

As a result, I have no idea whether things are right, wrong, misguided, or kflooey on that page. Anyone who wants to know details can simply stop over here for coffee and a chat.

Cheers, -Cliff

You can suggest changes on the talk page.

> Wikipedia provides a structured process for subjects to suggest changes without directly editing articles. The mechanism centers on the article's "talk page", a discussion area attached to every Wikipedia entry where editors coordinate improvements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_a_page_about...

Aah - thank you. Maybe I'll check it out. When I have free time. Uh right... Cheers, -Cliff

> Anyone who wants to know details can simply stop over here for coffee and a chat.

Amazing. Cliff, I've never met you, but I'm sure you're a great guy.

Classic Wikipedia. “I spoke with Cliff today; now I have to go discuss on the Talk page whether or not he’s dead.”

For living persons, Wikipedia takes misleading / contentious material quite seriously: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_livin...

That said, Wikipedia is pretty unapologetic about its preference for verifiability, not truth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_t...

No reliable secondary sources that you are still alive I'm afraid

To be fair, there actually is an exception specifically for just this kind of thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:BLPSELF... .

That policy itself seems wrong though. It seems to imply that anything someone claims about themselves on a personal blog doesn't need verification.

People often have a vested interest to lie about themselves, and often people may not remember historical details about their lives as accurately as they believe they do.

That said, "no really, I am still alive" seems like something that should be trusted as a source.

They did add nuance to that quote a long time ago. It's a good stance, it's fine if someone knows something to be true. But other visitors of Wikipedia don't know that, so anything that's added without a source is questionable.

No original research please

Ah, but we could cite Cliff's Facebook page as evidence that he is disputing the reports of his own death. That's at least strong enough to put his earthly existence in the "debatable" column.

Facebook is an unreliable source, and should not be cited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:SELFSOURCE

> Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves

Clifford Stoll's own Facebook page saying he's not dead can be cited on Wikipedia, even if Facebook itself (or Clifford's non-expert opinions) are unreliable

You laugh, but it's a real problem. In this case: a WP claim that Stoll was dead would quickly fall to the lack of reliable sources indicating his death; naturally, there's a WP policy for this.

They’re now arguing about whether the talk page counts as a secondary source.

Sounds a bit like a Philip K Dick story

In case anyone is taking this subthread too seriously: C.S.'s Wikipedia page does not in fact claim that he is dead, and its most recent update was in December 2025. Whatever rumours of his death may be circulating, they do not appear to have infected Wikipedia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com