[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

[Richard Farmbrough]

Fred Bauder wrote:

"The matter can be resolved by editing which conforms the article to 
Wikipedia policies."

This is true, however it is also true the editing which conforms the 
article to WP policies might fail to resolve the matter.

The revival of Gore Vidal's technique of some 50 years ago, where he 
associated the names of several supreme court judges with sexual acts 
and parts of the human anatomy, in his novel /Myron/ may or may not be 
considered a reasonable political ploy.  The same would apply to the 
relatively common practice of gaming page-rank for phrases such as "the 
worlds biggest liar" to ones political opponents.

The issue here is that Wikipedia becomes party to the action, and lends 
credibility to one side, not solely by documenting a (possibly) notable 
incident, but by the manner in which it does it .  There are several 
simple methods that could avoid or reduce this within sensible working 
practices of Wikipedia.

Firstly WP:UNDUE applies, the depth of coverage should not exceed that 
appropriate for the topic.  Secondly the wrod itself is not notable, so 
much as the incident. therefore simply renaming the article something 
like "Savage Google attack on Santorum" is far more apposite, and may 
not feed the Google attack it is documenting to the same extent. Thirdly 
the direct quote should not be included in many places in Wikpedia, and 
coverage should be mainly confined to the article in question.

Some parts of the article are of very dubious significance, and the 
recycling of random quotes does, for example the last one in 
"Recognition and usage" - citing the coiner himself, does nothing to 
enhance the readers understanding of campaign, only of preserving their 
linen.

RMF.