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

[George Herbert]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 23/05/2011 13:35, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> This seems to combine malice and political purpose. Really it is stuff
>> that belonged on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
>>
> I take it Fred means "this article" or "this campaign": if the latter
> that's obvious enough. Given a mainstream piece of coverage such as
> http://swampland.time.com/2011/05/17/please-do-not-google-the-name-of-this-undervalued-republican-candidate/
> from a few days ago, I wonder if the article is really out of step.
>
> Charles

There is a big difference between "This name-based neologism is
offensive and derogatory" and "This name-based neologism is offensive
and derogatory, but politicially and socially significant".

It's neither our doing or fault that the neologism has become
significant in some areas of society and has had a noticeable and
noticed effect on Santorum's potential future political career.
Failing to cover it would be an error of judgement on our part, and
quite frankly if we removed it we'd probably stir up enough negative
controversy related to censorship that his name would be dragged
through the mud worse than it already has been.

Santorum himself seems to have a decent level of understanding that
the phenomena is out of his control and not something he should try to
suppress, despite being personally offended.

We don't exist to fix the real world - we exist to report on it
accurately.  Many of the things we report on are unfortunate.  An IMF
candidate who alledgedly raped a hotel maid, a tornado that killed 89
plus people, a terrorist attack in Pakistan and several ongoing and
incipient wars, these are other unfortunate things that make the
neologism Santorum pale in comparison.


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com