On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com
On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingusbrian.mingus@colorado.edu
wrote:
When you Google for Santorum's last name this
Wikipedia article is the
second result. This means that people who are
looking for legitimate
information about him are not going to find it
right away - instead we are
going to feed them information about a biased
smear campaign rather than the
former Senators BLP.
Google's search results are entirely their business.
Yes, I agree with that comment. As Google are aware, people try to game their "algorithm"; and their business model requires them to take action on that. Not our problem at all.
The business of neologisms on WP was actually put into "How Wikipedia Works" (Chapter 7, "A Deletion Case Study"). At that time the example to hand was of the buzzword type, and the question was apparently whether WP's duty was to keep people informed of new jargon, or to be more distanced and only include a new term when it was clearly well established.
To be a bit more nuanced about this instance: if there is a dimension in that article of a BLP, certain things follow at least at the margin about use of sources. And NPOV clearly requires that a successful campaign to "discredit" someone is reported in those terms. Here there is a fine line between "mockery" and "smear", and saying the latter by default omits the element of satire. In other words, there are people who take US domestic politics very seriously, and media stories very seriously (I think enWP tends to take the media as a whole too seriously, BTW, which is the media's estimation of itself) , and regard Google now as part of the media, and so come to the sort of conclusion that Brian does.
OTOH we have our mission, and our policies, and should do our job. I'm prepared to take the flak if our pages contribute to information (i.e. report within NPOV) on a "biased smear campaign" (or satirical googlebombing, whatever you prefer); as long as our article is not biased, and is not campaigning. Bear in mind that the COI is supposed to limit the use of enWP for activism of certain kinds. We do have the policies to prevent misuse of our pages.
Charles
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Dickson (later 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