Yes, let's replace our elite judgment for that of everyone else. On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- On Tue, 24/5/11, GmbH <gmbh0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: GmbH <gmbh0...@gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]] > > To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l@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@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l