How To Get In Wikipedia: Get An Article Written About How You Aren't In Wikipedia
from the circular-logic dept
A Las Vegas-based Celtic band was the subject of a local newspaper article discussing how it wasn't listed in Wikipedia. A member of the band, Killian's Angels, noticed this when she checked the Wikipedia article about the soundtrack to the Grand Theft Auto IV video game, upon which the band appears. Every other band had a Wikipedia entry, so eventually one of the band's fans wrote one about them -- and it was deleted later that day because the band wasn't, according to Wikipedia editors, "notable." Cue the newspaper article... and then the follow-up, saying the band was back in Wikipedia, with an entry linking to the original story. A Wikipedia spokesman told the paper that "Sometimes furor over a deletion leads to a newspaper article, he said, which leads to notability that warrants a Wikipedia page." So a band isn't notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but then an article saying just that makes them notable enough for inclusion?![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: killian's angels, wikipedia
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about being all over the place online?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about being all over the place online?
Their policy for "speedy deletion" really boils down to making it easy for articles to be removed if an editor agrees with the person who marked said articles for deletion.
This story really highlights the absurdity of bureaucracy (in all cases, not just at Wikimedia).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deletions at all make Wikipedia useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Deletions at all make Wikipedia useless.
Wikipedia, in theory, works off of consensus of authoritative sources and discussion. Left wingers, intellectuals, academics... They tend to use these items to prove their points.
Conservatives, especially those of the talk show host variety, seem to think that a minority of scientists, non-authoritative sources, and their 'gut' are all more reliable than those sources the left tends towards.
That's not to say that the Left is always right, and the Right is always wrong.. Simply that the Left tends towards sources that are easier to verify, where as the Right tends towards sources that are.. well.. not.
But go ahead on to Conservapedia and read about how Barack Obama is the first Muslim President, and note that the Tuskegee Experiments seemingly never happened, and you clutch onto that reality! Clutch onto it like it was a life preserver!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a combination of mistakes but not a systematic flaw in wikipedia
The wiki method has worked fine for this article, and it will continue to be improved, especially with more citations. The incidental article about its deletion, while fun, would not be material to its inclusion in the long run, as such an article would not be written in a trusted source without some notability as it is. While I'm sure Jay Walsh (the spokesman) is an expert on many things Wikipedian, I feel he didn't convey the extra layer of what happened here.
Nothing truly surprising here, just a little roundabout way of the wiki method paying off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more thing to clear up
This quote of the post above (which takes some ideas from the newspaper article) illustrates this inaccuracy: "it was deleted later that day because the band wasn't, according to Wikipedia editors". The quote needs a "some" before "Wikipedia" to be accurate.
Again, I don't think anything went wrong here, it just took a different path than usual to get to a good start of an article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marketing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wikipedia articles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if this would work ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wiki war
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tell me about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Furthermore...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop deleting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frustrated!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New Band!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wikipedia article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wikipedia
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Notability is clearly subjective in their eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]