Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH gmbh0000@gmail.com wrote:
From: GmbH gmbh0000@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@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
outside political agendas.
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:
Santorum (neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28neologism%29- Cached
Santorum (sexual neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28sexual_neologism%29- Cached - Similar
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
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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l