So my Slate article, not surprisingly, has drawn new attention to my Wikipedia entry, which had lay quiet for awhile. Vandalism returned, and the Wiki vigilantes have come to my rescue, and I’ve popped in to edit my own entry once or twice.
I’ve drawn the attention of a few people, including one Todd Morman, who wrote in from North Carolina to say that I’d violated the Wikipedia policy of vanity pages.
My response is as follows:
Todd,
Thanks so much for your email. I did look at that URL and found this
section:
“An article should not be dismissed as “vanity” simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity.
Furthermore, an article is not “vanity” simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not “vanity” so long as the content is kept to salient
material and not overtly promotional.”
So by that definition, it would seem that I would be ok.
Furthermore, there does exist a mechanism by which Wikipedia and its band of merry vigilantes vets Wikipedia of unwanted pages and libelous/outrageous/offensive material. There is a vote for deletion policy. My entry survived that policy earlier this year.
So, what exactly is the problem?
-C
Beyond that, h4x0r extraordinaire Adrian Lamo wrote me to say that “it’s a bit gauche to be unduly interested in your own Wikipedia entry.”
I apologize for being so gauche. 
Chris,
Thanks for your comment.
Can you cite me the instance where I indicated that I was the “only one in the world to see the hoax for what it was.” ?
Furthermore, how exactly did I flout the spirit or the letter of the Wikipedia policy, as quoted above in this entry?
It’s your outright boastful attitude that is getting people worked up, but you probably know that. More people are aware of you now as a result of this flap than would have come to know your name in several years of freelancing. Well played. Your article in Slate reads as to indicate you were the only one in the world to see the hoax for what it was. Further, flouting the spirit, if not the letter of the Wikipedia regs in the same article touched a nerve among many (self included).
I have no doubt that your entry is now entirely valid with the inclusion of the following section:
“Farivar gained some small degree of Internet infamy in August 2005 from a piece in the online magazine Slate in which he details his own participation in debunking an Internet-based prank that attempted to fool the mass media into covering a fictitious practice called “greenlighting.” Some users of the web site Metafilter argued that Farivar’s article exaggerated his role in the event.
In the same Slate article he also boasted about creating this entry about himself on Wikipedia, an open online encyclopedia, and encouraged others to do the same, saying: “Yes, I added an entry on myself. Why haven’t you?”"
I understand your concern, I just happen to disagree with it. If my entry were guilty of being a vanity page and worthy of deletion, wouldn’t it have not survived the vote that happened on that subject earlier this year? Clearly someone else thinks that it should exist. Frankly, I don’t care either way. I find all of this rather amusing. If my Wikipedia entry were to disappear tomorrow, it honestly wouldn’t bother me at all.
That’s quite a selective reading, there, Cyrus. Fame may not be the sine qua non, but the page notes there should certainly be something else to justify the self-aggrandizement, a something else which your entry fails to offer. You’re also completely ignoring what that page calls “the most significant problem” with pages like yours: the “one-editor” issue. You also fail to address the more appropriate user page option, while waving away the seriousness of your obvious encouragement to all of your readers to create their own Wiki pages just like you have. Your failure to think about what that kind of move would do to the site is astonishing in a Slate writer, and demonstrates an obvious lack of knowledge and/or concern for how the site is supposed to operate.