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

[GmbH]

On May 23, 2011, at 7:58 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:

> --- On Mon, 23/5/11, Charles Matthews  
> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com>
>
>>> On 23 May 2011 02:24, Brian J Mingus<brian.mingus at 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