Wikipedia:Litigation void

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

Wikipedia articles are built on a foundation of multiple reliable sources. When an article topic is subject to ongoing litigation, this can affect the weight of coverage of that topic, and therefore the balance of perspectives in that article. This essay refers to that gap as a litigation void.

Wikipedia articles are required to cover their subjects in a neutral fashion. In more operational terms, this means giving due weight to the perspectives as they appear in published source materials.

This requirement runs into a natural limit: if a perspective is not covered in published sources that are considered reliable under Wikipedia's guidelines, Wikipedia is unable to cover that perspective. This is a source of systemic bias in Wikipedia. Strictly speaking, Wikipedia is not responsible for fixing this bigger problem of society, but we should be mindful that our ability to cover topics reliably is affected by this, and it would benefit the encyclopedia to search far and wide for these sources where they exist.

Many individuals and organizations that are the subject of Wikipedia articles are actively being sued. In the United States, where the Wikimedia Foundation and many English-language editors are based, when you are sued, you are often strictly instructed by your attorney to stay completely silent on the matter. The impact of this is asymmetric: the person, or organization, on the defendant side of the lawsuit must be silent, while the plaintiff is free to spread their allegations far and wide. Whether intended or not, this is very effective in preventing them from publishing statements that would provide an additional perspective to Wikipedia articles. This, in turn, gives undue weight to the plaintiff's perspective. This is another reason in favor of caution around recent events, since all of the facts and perspectives might not be known yet.

• We could potentially have a template to mark articles that are subject to ongoing litigation, and how it may affect coverage of the article.
• Article subjects should have a convenient option to "correct the record," to the extent they are able to. Published sources would be required, but input from the article subject could be useful in identifying an opportunity to improve their article.

• Wikipedia:Too soon