Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH <gmbh0000(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
From: GmbH <gmbh0000(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Date: Tuesday, 24 May, 2011, 1:11
On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
We
discussed this a couple of days ago at our meet-up.
I agree with
some of
the other comments made here that this blurs and
crosses the line
between
reporting and participation.
I have no sympathy for Santorum or his views. But
based on past
experience,
I also have little confidence that the main author's
motivation in
expanding
the article is anything other than political. They've
created puff
pieces on
politicians before (as well as hatchet jobs), in the
service of
deleted as a
puff piece
of a non-notable politician, but only after the
election, in which
he was
said to have done surprisingly well)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Peralta
Andreas
I think this is an excellent analysis. I too have little
sympathy for
Santorum, but it strikes me that this neologism would have
no real-
world notability if it wasn't attached to Santorum's name.
In any
other circumstance, a concept or neologism that has no
notability
outside of a larger, overarching concept would be relegated
to a
decently sized portion of the main article. Here, it's been
given its
own article, seemingly to make a political point.
I see that as the main thrust of the argument, not to
delete, but to
merge this back where it belongs-as an embarrassing but
largely non-
notable (in and of itself) episode of Rick Santorum's
larger career.
Before anyone says no, can they honestly answer the
question "Would
this word have deserved an article without co-opting the
name of a
major celebrity?" with a yes? If so, I'm wrong. But I don't
believe a
reasonable person can.
Moreover, it is disingenuous to suggest that we can sit on
our hands
and pretend that our handling of this issue does not have
broader
implications on the standing of Wikipedia in the world. If
we begin
to be seen as a "media outlet" (that description being
accurate or no
is a discussion for a later time) that actively
participates in
lending undue weight to juvenile retribution, we're going
to lose our
claim to neutrality quickly. As it is, I think we need
to
(deliberately, there's no need for haste and conspiracy)
start
trimming this article to a reasonable size and merge it
into Rick
Santorum's article, in order to give it the larger context
that the
higher calling of fairness deserves.
I believe that's the responsibility of Wikipedia, and I'd
urge other
editors, regardless of your politics (because I know most
of us would
probably not consider voting for the man, but that's
immaterial) to
consider the argument here and agree. If so, I'll be happy
to take
this discussion to the talk page, where we can iron out a
way to do
this without doing a disservice to our commitment to
impartiality.
Chromancer
Well, as of today, [[Santorum (neologism)]] has taken over the no. 1 AND 2
spots in the Google results for "Santorum". Both the old and new article
title appear, in spots 1 and 2.
It's even overtaken the original Googlebomb site set up by Savage, which is
now back in fourth place. To wit:
1.
Santorum (neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
Cached
2.
Santorum (sexual neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism)<http://en.wikipedia.or…
Cached - Similar
3.
Rick Santorum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Richard John "Rick" Santorum (born May 10, 1958) is a former United States
...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum - Cached - Similar
4.
Santorum
www.spreadingsantorum.com/ - Cached - Similar
I've no idea how the Wikipedia article manages to get itself represented
twice, with two different titles (one of which redirects to the other).
Personally, I think redirecting the thing to Santorum's BLP and covering
it there would be the "encyclopedic" thing to do.
The comparison to Bowdlerise, Orwellian etc. is IMO unrealistic. Those
neologisms have stood the test of time, and have been used un-consciously
in
prose. "Santorum" is a conscious joke word.
Andreas
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l