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. 🙂
