How To Get In Wikipedia: Get An Article Written About How You Aren't In Wikipedia

from the circular-logic dept

Thu, Jan 22nd 2009 2:14pm — Carlo Longino

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?

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

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2009 @ 2:27pm

Being in a video game doesn't make you notable? A video game where you're probably seen/heard by more people than will see the newspaper article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2009 @ 2:54pm

Once wiki lost it with their deletion frenzy, I regretted ever donating them money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jack Humphrey, 22 Jan 2009 @ 2:55pm

How about being all over the place online?
Notability is clearly subjective in their eyes. Many people are exempt from being considered notable because of what they are notable for: self promotion and branding. The assumption is any mention of them is a ploy for more self branding and cannot be taken seriously, even if they are notable as hell.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grae, 22 Jan 2009 @ 3:17pm

Re: How about being all over the place online?
Looking over Wikipedia's Notability Policy it really seems to be worded just vaguely enough so that it can be interpreted differently depending on how you define "notable".

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jan 2009 @ 4:31pm

Deletions at all make Wikipedia useless.
The only thing that should be deleted are outright lies. It amazes me the left slant to a large portion of the of the crap in wikipedia anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zubin, 22 Jan 2009 @ 5:06pm

This is a combination of mistakes but not a systematic flaw in wikipedia
First off, the article could easily have had more citations to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability requirements (which are absolutely necessary as Wikipedia is a tertiary source). The fulfillment of notability guidelines (which are just that-- guidelines) basically follows easily once something is verifiable.

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 thread ]
Zubin, 22 Jan 2009 @ 5:13pm

One more thing to clear up
Many people tend to think that everyone in Wikipedia agrees most of the time. The fact is, most of the time things never reach a point where consensus is even required, people do things on their own. Even when consensus is reached, its usually consensus of a tiny fraction of editors. This is a wonderful model that allows Wikipedia to grow as fast as it does. But it also means that Wikipedia's editors should not be considered as a group, nor even its admins.

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 thread ]
Chet, 22 Jan 2009 @ 6:27pm

If there wasn't a baseline for inclusion then everyone just writes an article about themselves and the encyclopedia becomes a massive spam trap. The standards for notability are pretty low: if there are 2 features about you in a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, TV show) then you are considered "notable". It is hilariously ironic that having a newspaper write two articles about how you aren't notable enough to be included in Wikipedia DOES make you notable to be included.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 22 Jan 2009 @ 7:00pm

Marketing
This is all marketing. Their website is horrible. You can't listen to any of their songs or even a significant amount on their site. And until this article, how many people really heard of them?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
long island girl, 22 Jan 2009 @ 7:04pm

wikipedia articles
Wikipedia has always been known to be a very reliable information website so it means that the editor has to make sure that the pages that they are including in the website are good. However, editors must also have certain standards that they need to follow and not just because they feel like adding or deleting the article. everything must be fair to everyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mrrar, 22 Jan 2009 @ 9:55pm

Re: Deletions at all make Wikipedia useless.
It continues to amaze me how Conservatives don't understand that Colbert's joke about "Reality having a liberal bias" is... you know.. Funny because it's true :-..

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 thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 22 Jan 2009 @ 11:09pm

I wonder if this would work ...
... for the Everywhere Girl ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stephen Pate, 23 Jan 2009 @ 3:45am

Wiki war
It's easy to get some free publicity with Wikipedia. You just post something they don't like, they take it down and you report that in the media. Instant attention. Although I hadn't planned it that way, it's what happened when juvenile Wiki editors hit my stubborn streak. Wiki War hits Disability Alert It gave Disability Alert national media attention across Canada. Apparently the Wiki editor sits in his room pouring over Wiki entries 18 hours a day, that is when he's not working as a stooge for the Conservative Party.After my Wiki war got national Canadian media attention, some newspapers sent a memo banning Wiki quotes which is a smart move.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Doe, 23 Jan 2009 @ 4:10am

No wonder the Encyclopedia Britannica guy complains about Wikipedia.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rachel, 23 Jan 2009 @ 6:15pm

Tell me about it!
I made this really nice entry about Joe Shipp, the successful basketball player from Cal, and it was immediately deleted for not being noteworthy enough. Like hell he's not. I gotta submit this to Cal's newspaper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rachel, 23 Jan 2009 @ 6:16pm

Furthermore...
I read a Wikipedia article to the person it was about today and it was not entirely accurate. Just felt like reporting that somewhere. I guess I could fix it but it's a huge headache.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Denny, 12 Jan 2010 @ 12:30pm

stop deleting
Wikipedia sucks now. like if you make a page about like a teacher or something theyll just delete it. its still a true article, its just about someone who no one has heard of. thats where wikipedia fails
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jules, 15 May 2011 @ 3:36am

I guess the editor didn't know the band would finagle a newspaper article in retaliation... With a little more foresight they could of prevented such a ridiculous article from being printed (what a shameful article.) If the band is playing Celtic music then they probably have enough balls to get an article written... DUH, shouldn't of deleted that page.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Elsie Marie, 17 Aug 2011 @ 1:12am

Frustrated!
I'm glad to know it's not just me. I tried to make an article about this artist Ysmay I follow who performs on stage at concerts who is also an entrepreneur and it was flagged for deletion in a few days. I think it's because she paints with her breasts and that's a little too out-of-the-box for them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Whiskey Labido, 21 Dec 2011 @ 12:58pm

New Band!
Our 11 song cd is due out by April 2012..Will we get signed and actually become part of Wikipedia? We'll see soon!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
damien auksorius, 29 Jun 2012 @ 5:53pm

wikipedia article
ive tried heaps of times to write an article to be put on wikipedia and it just didnt work
[ link to this | view in thread ]
damien auksorius, 29 Jun 2012 @ 5:55pm

it seems to me they only want famous peolple on wikipedia but i am a plumber in the hobart area and just want to put my business name out there my name is damien auksorius plumbing .thank you
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damien auksorius, 30 Mar 2014 @ 1:26am

Wikipedia
Hi my name is damien auksorius , I've been trying for years to get my name on the wikipedia site , I find that famous people can write articles about themselves but when I try to write an article it seems to get deleted , please wikipedia , help the little guy who wants to be recognised , thanks again , damien auksorius plumbing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Damien peter Auksorius, 24 May 2014 @ 8:30pm

Wikipedia
Hi my name is damien peter Auksorius , I've been trying for years to make a Wikipedia profile , but I think it is only for famous people like Leonardo dicaprio , thanks again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lisa Tarankus, 6 May 2019 @ 7:46am

Notability is clearly subjective in their eyes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]