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

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH <gmbh0000 at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: GmbH <gmbh0000 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at 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.
> >
> > 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


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:

1. 

Santorum (neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(neologism) - Cached

2.

Santorum (sexual neologism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_(sexual_neologism) - Cached - Similar

3.

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

4.

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