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

[The Cunctator]

Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else.

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- 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)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santorum_%28neologism%29>- Cached
>
> 2.
>
> 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
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>