Wikipedia not so friendly to contributors
I'm one of the biggest advocates around for Wikipedia. I love using Wikipedia for just about any research on any topic, but especially for information on bands and movies. In my job, I hold out Wikipedia as a success story (THE success story) for how Web 2.0 and user-generated content is more effective and efficient than old-fashion command-and-control processes.
Although I use numerous wikis in different settings, including MediaWiki, the software that Wikipedia runs on, I have never actually made a contribution to Wikipedia before. I'm sure most of you have had the experience that on almost anything you care to look up, Wikipedia already has a comprehensive article. What more could I add?
Well, after going to the Fist of Dishonor show at Ash Street Salon on Oct 28th, I thought I would check out Wikipedia to see what they had on Fist of Dishonor. Nada! No article at all. I'm not associated with the band at all, so I have no conflict of interest. Finally an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia!
I carved some time out of my busy, busy, busy work and life schedule. I reviewed independent articles about Fist of Dishonor published by several different music-oriented periodicals, visited the bands website, reviewed independent photos and blogs about the band, and write a short article about the band. I spent time tweaking the MediaWiki syntax (among the worst of all wiki engines that I've used) to get it just right, and posted it. Yay! My first contribution.
I went back a few minutes later, and the page was gone! My hours of hard work vanished. Was this a case of the infamous Wikipedia vandalism at work? I have previously tried to allay the concerns of others about vandalism: "the system is self-correcting", "you heard about the few bad cases, but the majority aren't like that", and so forth.
After a little investigation it turns out that it wasn't vandalism at all. It was the over-eager immune system of Wikipedia rejecting my article as being "not notable". My enthusiasm for Wikipedia has been crushed. Do the masses really have a voice, or are we just under the illusion that we have a voice until we test it? Is Wikipedia the new opiate of the masses?
Although I use numerous wikis in different settings, including MediaWiki, the software that Wikipedia runs on, I have never actually made a contribution to Wikipedia before. I'm sure most of you have had the experience that on almost anything you care to look up, Wikipedia already has a comprehensive article. What more could I add?
Well, after going to the Fist of Dishonor show at Ash Street Salon on Oct 28th, I thought I would check out Wikipedia to see what they had on Fist of Dishonor. Nada! No article at all. I'm not associated with the band at all, so I have no conflict of interest. Finally an opportunity to contribute to Wikipedia!
I carved some time out of my busy, busy, busy work and life schedule. I reviewed independent articles about Fist of Dishonor published by several different music-oriented periodicals, visited the bands website, reviewed independent photos and blogs about the band, and write a short article about the band. I spent time tweaking the MediaWiki syntax (among the worst of all wiki engines that I've used) to get it just right, and posted it. Yay! My first contribution.
I went back a few minutes later, and the page was gone! My hours of hard work vanished. Was this a case of the infamous Wikipedia vandalism at work? I have previously tried to allay the concerns of others about vandalism: "the system is self-correcting", "you heard about the few bad cases, but the majority aren't like that", and so forth.
After a little investigation it turns out that it wasn't vandalism at all. It was the over-eager immune system of Wikipedia rejecting my article as being "not notable". My enthusiasm for Wikipedia has been crushed. Do the masses really have a voice, or are we just under the illusion that we have a voice until we test it? Is Wikipedia the new opiate of the masses?