Cyrus,
I have never responded to or written in a blog, so here goes.
I think that what is happening with your Wikipedia entry is fantastic. First of all, I loved your article on Slate even before I discovered the arguments surrounding it. Those who are mad at you for exposing them are fools; if everyone who discovered a prank in progress played along, there would be no pranks. ThatÕs the point: pranks are difficult to do right. The ÒgreenlightingÓ prank could have been good (not spectacular, just good). In my opinion, a prank should be judged partly on the effort that went into its execution (which includes keeping it secret). Clearly, your good friends at WookieFetish were not precautious enough (read: F for effort) and hence (admittedly, this is giving you the benefit of the doubt), deserved to be busted and ratted out to a worldwide audience through Slate. So, I say HURRAH!!! to your unveiling of that mediocre prank.
Now, your Wikipedia entry is a whole other story. Originally, I might not have approved of it (despite my barely controllable desire to make a Wikipedia page about my own, and much less significant, life) because it does violate the rules of Wikipedia. Again, IÕm fully prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that you must not have known about the rule (much like IÕm giving Raphael Palmeiro the benefit of the doubt, because I love any public figure with the cojones to be a Viagra spokesman).
The situation with your Wikipedia entry has changed in the past few days, however. As a creative writing minor who loves to speak in hyperbole IÕd say the philosophical implications are staggering. Even though I would think that your entry was illegal when you first made it, I have changed my mind for two reasons:
First of all, thanks to the Slate article and your entry, you have experience a spike in your notability over the past few days. Regardless of your notability in the world at large (no offense, IÕm not exactly about to be a guest on The Daily Show) you have, in the past 48 hours, reached a much higher level of notability among Wikipedia readers. Since they are Wikipedia readers, doesnÕt that make your entry on Wikipedia suddenly relevant to them, and so relevant to Wikipedia? ItÕs kind of like a newspaper in a small town. I live in a town of ~2,000 residents (no joke). Our first selectman (mayor) will probably never make it into the history books. SheÕs in the town newspaper every week, however. Relevancy is relative.
Your entry has also become a part of the history of the Wikipedia itself. Forget the thousands of hits that your Slate article is sending Wikipedia. Your entryÕs role in the debate over Wikipedia conduct should be sufficient enough to validate its existence.
This is not to belittle your existence, however. I know a lot of people who do not work for Macworld, and who have never written for The New York Times, Wired, Wired News, Slate, Mobile magazine, Playlist Magazine, Oakland City Magazine, Business 2.0, The San Mateo Daily Journal, MacAddict, The Age (Australia), and The Daily Californian. (Yes, I copied and pasted that. No, I am not ashamed of my blatant laziness.)
Good luck with your struggle against nitpicking, power-drunk, whining users of Wikipedia.
-Charles H. Vick
Hamilton College
Clinton, NY
