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

Wed May 25 19:48:58 UTC 2011

I've dropped Cirt a note and link to this thread, in case they weren't aware 
of it. 

As mentioned before, what is at the root of this is a wider problem though: 
to what extent we as a project are happy to act as participants, rather than
neutral observers and reporters, in the political process.

I'd say that neutrality is our best bet here, as anything else is likely to
come back to us eventually. We should not make *undue* efforts to promote
political or social campaigns.

There is little in present policy to address this. WP:Activist is an essay.

Andreas

--- On Wed, 25/5/11, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wednesday, 25 May, 2011, 20:21
> I'm not surprised that a Wikipedia
> article shoots to the top of Google
> searches, isn't that one of the reasons why we write here?
> I'm pretty
> sure I've seen Wikipedia articles come top on Google even
> if they lack
> templates and are practically orphans.
> 
> Nor am I surprised that someone who writes an article then
> goes and
> creates associated templates. I don't do much with
> templates but I
> have a similar editing pattern - I was in the British
> Museum for the
> Hoxne Hoard challenge and wound up contributing a number of
> edits to
> articles about the sorts of spoons that were in the hoard.
> 
> I am concerned at the risk of the mailing list degenerating
> into some
> sort of back channel and disrupting the wiki. People using
> it for off
> wiki complaints about an AFD and criticism of individual
> wikipedians
> who may not be subscribing  to this list is in my view
> unhealthy.
> 
> Have any of the people expressing disquiet about that
> editor notified
> them of this thread?
> 
> WereSpielChequers
> 
> On 25 May 2011 19:51, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Let's just delete articles we don't
> >> like. It would simplify the wikilawyering.
> >
> >
> > You see, I question whether if fulfils any
> encyclopedic (rather than
> > Googlebombing) purpose to list "santorum" in a nav
> template of 100 political neologisms, and you come back with
> quips like that, and accuse people of
> > wikilawyering (while exhorting me to Assume Good
> Faith, in capital letters:
> > "You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume
> Good Faith.").
> >
> > Incidentally, I just noticed the following
> conversation on the political
> > neologisms template's talk page:
> >
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > ==Shouldn't this be a category?==
> >
> > I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Why would
> anyone looking at (say)
> > Euroscepticism want to navigate to an article about
> Soccer mom? Surely, this
> > is why categories were invented. Bastin 08:46, 11 May
> 2011 (UTC)
> >
> > :It is most useful as a template. And yes, linguists
> and political scholars
> > would indeed wish to navigate through these articles.
> -- Cirt (talk) 08:47,
> > 11 May 2011 (UTC)
> >
> > ::They're completely unrelated terms. Why would you
> have a template on
> > 'words invented since 1973'? Bastin 09:31, 11 May 2011
> (UTC)
> >
> > :::Because they are of interest to those studying the
> subject matter from
> > the perspective of many different varied fields. --
> Cirt (talk) 15:27, 11
> > May 2011 (UTC)
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> >
> > "Most useful". A category doesn't add any in-bound
> links. And that was the
> > end of that conversation.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> >> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> >> >
> >> >> I don't want to get that clever, to the
> point that
> >> we take
> >> >> into account
> >> >> that even talking about the article on
> this list
> >> might
> >> >> affect ranking.
> >> >> What is needed is to improve the article;
> it is
> >> about a
> >> >> political act,
> >> >> not about lube.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If it's about the political act, it should be
> covered
> >> under [[Santorum
> >> > controversy regarding homosexuality]].
> >> >
> >> > Linguistically -- the term has been included
> in one
> >> dictionary, and in one
> >> > book on neologisms. Some erotic books have
> used it
> >> (and we have gleefully
> >> > included full quotes from each in the
> article's
> >> references:
> >> >
> >> > "She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a
> trickle of
> >> santorum from her
> >> > ass, and throws it under the cot."
> >> >
> >> > "Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes
> that
> >> seemed to the panting
> >> > Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than
> ever before.
> >> At each descent of
> >> > the pouncing big prick into her sanctum
> santorum,
> >> Valerie thrust upward with
> >> > all her strength until the velvety surfaces
> of her
> >> rotund naked buttocks
> >> > swung clear of the bed"
> >> >
> >> > "Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed
> his
> >> blood-lubed fist straight up
> >> > my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and
> licked the
> >> santorum clean.")
> >> >
> >> > Is that enough for linguistic notability?
> Perhaps
> >> enough for a Wiktionary
> >> > entry, but a whole article, on bona-fide
> *linguistic*,
> >> encyclopedic grounds?
> >> >
> >> > As for the template use:
> >> >
> >> > Including the term in *both* the sexual slang
> template
> >> and the political
> >> > neologisms template, both custom-created for
> the
> >> occasion, seems a stretch
> >> > to me.
> >> >
> >> > It is not a "political neologism", rightfully
> listed
> >> along with terms like
> >> >
> >> > Adopt a Highway • Afrocentrism • "And"
> theory of
> >> conservatism • Big
> >> > government • Chairman • Checkbook
> diplomacy •
> >> Children's interests •
> >> > Collaborationism • Conviction politics •
> Cordon
> >> sanitaire • Cricket test •
> >> > Democide • Dhimmitude • Eco-terrorism
> •
> >> Epistemocracy • Eurocentrism •
> >> > Eurorealism • Euroscepticism • Eurosphere
> •
> >> Failed state • etc.
> >> >
> >> > in a 100-term template, causing it to appear
> in all of
> >> those articles.
> >> >
> >> > Listing it in the sexual slang template,
> based on less
> >> than a dozen
> >> > appearances in print as an actual word -- as
> opposed
> >> to reporting about
> >> > Dan Savage's campaign -- is a closer call,
> but still
> >> debatable.
> >> >
> >> > I don't like Santorum either, and sorry to be
> a
> >> spoil-sport, but it's
> >> > unworthy of Wikipedia.
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> >
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 