Reverend Jax Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Haha, my high school is on there due to it's "Learning Skills program" that I was actually in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 My High School's in there, too... I created the article actually, and added the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 This article has about seven thoasand hyperlinks in it, so I recommend reading it at Slate by following http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/ I don't know if Slate articles become inaccessible after time like NYT ones, so I'll post the body of the article here without links. Evicted From WikipediaWhy the online encyclopedia won't let just anyone in. By Timothy Noah Posted Saturday, Feb. 24, 2007, at 7:02 AM ET Pass me that whiskey bottle. My Wikipedia bio is about to disappear because I fail to satisfy the "notability guideline." Wikipedia, as you probably know, is an online, multilingual encyclopedia whose entries are written and edited by readers around the world. What you may not know is that this ongoing experiment in Web-based collaboration maintains volunteer gatekeepers, and one of them has whisked me (or, rather, the entry describing me) under the insulting rubric, "Wikipedia articles with topics of unclear importance." I share this digital limbo with Anthony Stevens ("internationally respected Jungian analyst, psychiatrist, and author"), Final Approach ("romantic comedy anime series"), Secproof ("well known security consulting company in Finland"), and about 400 other topics tagged during the past calendar month. There we languish, awaiting "deletion review," which I will surely flunk. Wikipedia's notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement. To be notable, a Wikipedia topic must be "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Although I have written or been quoted in such works, I can't say I've ever been the subject of any. And wouldn't you know, some notability cop cruised past my bio and pulled me over. Unless I get notable in a hurry—win the Nobel Peace Prize? Prove I sired Anna Nicole Smith's baby daughter?—a "sysop" (volunteer techie) will wipe my Wikipedia page clean. It's straight out of Philip K. Dick. My career as an encyclopedia entry began on Sept. 6, 2005, when (according to Wikipedia's "history" tab) an anonymous user posted a three-sentence bio noting that I wrote the Chatterbox column in Slate; that previously I'd been a Washington-based reporter for the Wall Street Journal; and that my wife, "fellow journalist Marjorie Williams," had died the previous January. I've since discovered through some Web sleuthing that my Boswell was a student at Reed College named Ethan Epstein. Subsequent reader edits added to Epstein's original a few more professional and personal items from my résumé that, like the earlier details, were readily available online. I can't say that I'd ever harbored an ambition to be listed in Wikipedia, but when I tripped over my bio three months after it appeared, I felt mildly flattered. Exercising my Wiki rights, I corrected my city of residence, which was off by a few blocks, and added that I'd published a posthumous anthology of Marjorie's writing under the title The Woman at the Washington Zoo. Various items got added to and subtracted from my bio over the next year and a half, and every now and then I myself would check for errors (there were surprisingly few). It was on one such foray that I discovered I'd been designated for Wiki oblivion, like a dead tree marked with orange spray paint for the city arborist to uproot. Talk about humiliating! Wikipedia does not, it assures readers, measure notability "by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgments." In other words, it was nothing personal. But to be told one has been found objectively unworthy hardly softens the blow. "Think of all your friends and colleagues who've never been listed," a pal consoled. Cold comfort. If you've never been listed in Wikipedia, you can always argue that your omission is an oversight. Not me. I've been placed under a microscope and, on the basis of careful and dispassionate analysis, excluded from the most comprehensive encyclopedia ever devised. Ouch! But the terms of eviction from Wikipedia raise a larger issue than the bruised ego of one scribbler (or Jungian analyst or anime artist or Finnish security consultant). Why does Wikipedia have a "notability" standard at all? We know why other encyclopedias need to limit the topics they cover. If they're on paper, they're confined by space. If they're on the Web, they're confined by staff size. But Wikipedia commands what is, for all practical purposes, infinite space and infinite manpower. The drawback to Wikipedia's ongoing collaboration with readers is that entries are vulnerable to error, clumsy writing, and sabotage. The advantage is that Wikipedia can draw on the collective interests and knowledge of its hundreds of thousands of daily visitors to cover, well, anything. To limit that scope based on notions of importance and notability seems self-defeating. If Wikipedia publishes a bio of my cleaning lady, that won't make it any harder to field experts to write and edit Wikipedia's bio of Albert Einstein. So, why not let her in? Granted, there are a few practical limits to covering any and all topics, "important" or not. One is privacy. Assuming that my cleaning lady were neither a public figure nor part of any larger story, it would be difficult to justify posting her bio against her will. Another limit is accuracy. The bio's assertions about my cleaning lady would have to be independently verifiable from trustworthy sources made available to readers. Otherwise, Wikipedia's vast army of volunteer fact-checkers would be unable to find out whether the bio was truthful. But Wikipedia already maintains rules concerning verifiability and privacy. Why does it need separate rules governing "notability"? Wikipedia's attempt to define who or what is notable is so rococo that it even has elaborate notability criteria for porn stars. (A former Playboy Playmate of the Month is notable; a hot girlfriend to a famous rock star is not.) Inside the permanent town meeting that is Wikipedia's governing structure—a New Yorker article about Wikipedia last year reported that fully 25 percent of Wikipedia is now devoted to governance of the site itself—the notability standard is a topic of constant dispute. When people go to this much trouble to maintain a distinction rendered irrelevant by technological change, the search for an explanation usually leads to Thorstein Veblen's 1899 book, The Theory of the Leisure Class. (Click here to read it.) This extended sociological essay argues that the pursuit of status based on outmoded social codes takes precedence over, and frequently undermines, the rational pursuit of wealth and, more broadly, common sense. Hierarchical distinctions among people and things remain in force not because they retain practical value, but because they have become pleasurable in themselves. Wikipedia's stubborn enforcement of its notability standard suggests Veblen was right. We limit entry to the club not because we need to, but because we want to. [update, Feb. 24, 2007, 11:40 a.m.: I didn't bargain on Wikipedia being such a highly sensitive instrument. Immediately after this article was posted (and therefore well before most people had a chance to read it), a Wikipedia sysop granted my entry a stay of execution with respect to "notability." Delighted as I am to be elevated once again to the company of Nicolaus Copernicus, Igor Stravinsky, and Melvin "Slappy" White, can the dividing line between eminence and obscurity really be the authorship of a single magazine article about Wikipedia? I note with interest that Stacy Schiff, author of the excellent New Yorker article cited above, failed to impress Wikipedia's arbiters of notability by winning the Pulitzer Prize in biography, writing several other well-regarded books, and receiving fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It wasn't until she wrote her Wikipedia piece that she became sufficiently notable to be written up in Wikipedia. I presume the Wikipedia sysops will debate this point and others with respect to my entry, and that I can expect to be re-tagged for removal and un-tagged ad infinitum over the coming days as they hash it out. I'll follow future developments (click here to keep track of them) with interest. In the meantime, I hope it isn't lost on readers that my aim was not to reinstate myself but rather to argue against Wikipedia's "notability" standard itself and to use it as a newfangled illustration of our society's love affair with invidious distinction.] A version of this article also appears in the Outlook section of the Sunday Washington Post. Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate. Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2160222/ Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC Thoughts? As a proponent of "Hondo's on Wikipedia" I can't help but agree. I'm interested in resident "sysop" SpunkyMonkey's comments, but he hasn't been around for a few weeks, so I'm PMing him a link so he can't miss it next time he drops in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Hmm... I hardly even post anymore, I just maintain it... my posting days were more when I was a rookie, these days I just make sure everything is kept in check and I do some maintenance.... but yeah, regarding him. The person who nominated him is not really a sysop, nor is he anything big, he's just a regular user who felt this author was not notable. Though, I can't say if this article had any influence, his deletion was followed by a speedy keep decision, meaning an overwhelming amount of people who "voted" that he was notable enough Still, notability is so stringent because a lot of people tend to feel their achievements are more notable than they are... once, I had someone vandalize me for a few days because he insisted his article be kept due to him being twice the California State Spelling Bee Champion and felt it unfair that Paris Hilton could be considered more notable than him. It was hard to have to actually tell someone they're not notable, but really, the guidelines are put there for people like him... and also, to stop the overwhelming amount of high school aged garage bands who make articles daily. Yeah, I really have no true opinion about this... Wikipedia has its faults, so does everything else, and for me it's more of a hobby to keep me from dying of boredom while online, and it kept me sane during my three years of forced seclusion as is... I also agree with him, but it's not going to change anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 as is... I also agree with him, but it's not going to change anything Why not? If it becomes a common criticism that Wikipedia shouldn't discriminate because (as stated in the article), unlike a paper encyclopedia, the space for text is soooo massive, there's no NEED to discriminate, then it could easily change. It just has to become part of the discourse. It's not like we're talking about campaign finance reform. This is something that could change if it becomes a common criticism. If you have enough food for everybody, do you burn half of it because that way the half of the people who can eat will feel more special? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbie Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I'm fairly sure the notability criteria is more for the sake of Wiki's sense of its own notability than any actualy encyclopaedic criteria. I mean, how respectable can they be if they're carrying articles on 10 001 garage bands and every messageboard run by some guys with 1/16th Irish heritage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Which reinforces the author's argument citing The Theory of the Leisure Class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm fairly sure the notability criteria is more for the sake of Wiki's sense of its own notability than any actualy encyclopaedic criteria. I mean, how respectable can they be if they're carrying articles on 10 001 garage bands and every messageboard run by some guys with 1/16th Irish heritage? This is the point, it's meant to be a serious project like any other encyclopedia, whether it has unlimited space does not matter, it's not meant to be an indiscriminate collection of all the information known to humanity, it's meant to be a regular encyclopedia which happens to be openly edited by average people, focusing on the same academic topics that any encyclopedia contains. The fact it has unlimited space is just an asset that allows it to contain more information than the average encyclopedia would. If you allow just any topic to be included, it, firstly, will remove what little credibility it has, and secondly, take the focus off the point of the encyclopedia, to share unbiased knowledge. It's not like having all the food and burning half, it's more like... would the crappy garage band really be considered an informative topic to ANYONE except the members of the band itself? The article then becomes a useless waste because it will have no point to anyone but those who created it and their friends, then, when the band breaks up, as is common, the article will become pointless as its subject no longer exists and keeping tabs on this would be too difficult a task for the few users who actually take the time to keep the encyclopedia in check... which in turn would be an impossible task as how would someone a thousand miles away from the location of the crappy garage band even know they've broken up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 no rebuttal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I really don't know what to say if I haven't made myself clear already. The original concept for the encyclopedia is to have informations about as many things as possible. The only reason things should be omitted is for limitations on space. If there are limitations, the most logical methodology for discrimination of various topics is that of a subjective form of 'importance.' But it is a necesary evil to accomodate a reality fo physical limitations. But if there is no limitations of space, there should be no such discrimination. All the other quality standards Wikipedia implies would take care of any issues brought on my indiscriminate influx of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 An encyclopedia is not meant to provide information about as many things as possible... it is meant to be a refference tool of knowledge about things of general importance to large numbers of people... and by large numbers, i don't mean 250 members of a forum... basically, why should anyone care about my dog, or my fountain pen i've had for 8 years which someone at work stole, or the amazing can of pringles i have next to me right now? The point of an encyclopedia has never been to contain everything that is known to man, but rather to organize the mass of knowledge used by everyday people into one handy reffernce. I really don't know what to say if I haven't made myself clear already. if you didn't want my opinion, and instead just wanted to make your own known to everyone especially me, then why did you ask me to come here and give you mine? You should've just posted it and let it be, that would've saved me some fucking time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 You know, you could always make your own Wiki... for free http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetalHeart Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 You know, you could always make your own Wiki... for free http://www.wikia.com/wiki/Wikia Ooooh we need this for HONDO'S NOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Its true. i looked at this option, and its one of those things i think couild be great if we get it going...although that dastardly 2T might just edit all things to fit his agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ganny McVagflaps Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Hey, I've ended all my political aspirations. As you see the "Vote 2track" is now gone for something I'm sure you'll agree is far classier and subtle. I will say I'm sorry that Jax never made with the stunt 'cause now I have a picture with Hondo's Bar written in my blood and nothing to do with it....oh well 2k8 here I come! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Bob Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Save it for October. We can build a whole theme around a shot like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpunkyMonkey Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Heh... you can all follow wiki rules and make no self-references MEANING YOU CAN'T EDIT YOUR OWN ARTICLES, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY A THIRD PARTY now that'd be interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 wait, i thought i saw a plugin for our version of the board software that emulated wiki that we could basically edit ourselves...ill have to look into that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.