Unwanted: New articles in Wikipedia

That’s a pretty provocative headline. I don’t usually do provocative headlines. But Wikipedia has undergone such a dramatic culture shift of late that it merits wider attention.

It may seem like a trivial gripe — should we care about the battle over what stays or goes in this online encyclopedia. But it’s an indication there’s trouble in Wikipedia’s community and its collective soul. Given how many people now depend on the project worldwide, it’s a problem that needs to be recognized as a threat that could starve Wikipedia long term.

In my previous post, Wikipedia Plateau, I wondered — what was happening in English Wikipedia that would cause a massive drop in new article creation?

Lots of people chimed in, with over a dozen thoughtful comments. I didn’t really buy most of the explanations. New article creation restrictions in December 2005 didn’t make sense as a reason for an October 2006 drop.

It’s clear an emergent community phenomenon was affecting new articles. And I found something startling — articles like [[Pownce]] and [[Michael Getler]], about new and old topics alike, were equally hit by this new contagion. The fate of just these two articles will surprise most Wikipedians.

Michael Getler is an esteemed news reporter having served as ombudsman for the Washington Post newspaper. He’s currently serving as the first ever ombudsman for the Public Broadcasting System in the US. As I watched the evening news the other night, he was identified as one of the journalists tracked by the CIA, revealed by the “Crown Jewels” documents had been declassified. Like any good Wikipedian, I of course looked him up right away to see what his article had.

Nothing, no article existed at all. Surprising. So doing exactly what Wikipedians normally do, I was bold, and I created a starter article:

Michael Getler is the ombudsman for the Public Broadcasting System in the United States.

External links

I’ve done this many times before — I bolded the name, made internal wikilinks, included an external source and labeled it a stub. It had all the components any experienced Wikipedian would have created.

Even a bot looking for basic “articleness” would have found this perfectly acceptable. It was a fine stub. Another user Cmprince edited it to use a more specific “US television” stub tag. Yes, this was the start of a good seed crystal that would grow.

Or so I thought.

Within one hour, a User:Chris9086 came by and slapped a “speedy delete” notice on the page. The “pink slip” read:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. The given reason is: It is a very short article providing little or no context (CSD A1), contains no content whatsoever (CSD A3), consists only of links elsewhere (CSD A3) or a rephrasing of the title (CSD A3). If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself.

What the… what manner of… who the… how could any self-respecting Wikipedian imagine this could be deleted?

I’ve been an editor since 2003, an admin with over 10,000 edits and I had never been this puzzled by a fellow Wikipedian. Did he even bother to check the subject matter, or my user page to see my track record? I wrote on his Talk page:

…the speedy deletion tag on Michael Getler is inexplicable. Since he is the first-ever ombudsperson for PBS is not only notable, but extremely notable. — Fuzheado | Talk 19:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime other Wikipedians came and added more to the article. Finally, eight hours later someone (User:JPD) removed the obviously inappropriate deletion notice. Chris9086 eventually got back to me with a one liner:

It was one sentence long when I added the tag. Chris9086 02:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That was his justification for deleting it. Incredible. This user was so specialized in the chapter and verse of deletion criteria, yet he had no idea about Wikipedia’s communal editing culture, its collaborative spirit or the classic essay “The perfect stub article” and its modern recommendations. I was tempted to write a nastygram, “You have a problem. You have a deletion hammer, and everything looks like a nail.”

Showing some Wikilove, I decided not to. It was an isolated incident, it wasn’t as bad as I thought. Until today.

While traipsing through the blogosphere, I read a post that complained that the new web site Pownce.com did not have a Wikipedia article.

I said to myself, “Oh whiny blog, of course Pownce has a Wikipedia page.”

Pownce was created by the famous entrepreneur and podcaster Kevin Rose, the founder of digg.com. If there’s anything Wikipedia is good at it’s tech stuff, the new hottest Web 2.0 projects. I just saw a BusinessWeek article out talking about Pownce.

“Let me prove you oh-so-wrong by clicking in Wikipedia and … what the?!”

Here’s what [[Pownce]] read:

View or restore 37 deleted edits?

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name.

How in the wiki gods could this be? Have the lunatics taken over the asylum?

The message about “37 deleted edits” is a bit unusual even to experienced Wikipedians. It’s a message only an administrator (like myself) can see, because admins can view deleted versions, undelete articles and restore pages.

I was flabbergasted. I went into the deleted history, and examined the last version that got deleted. It had an infobox with hard statistics, a “see also” section, external links, the works. The text started:

Pownce is one of the latest entries in the world of online social networks. But unlike similar websites, its focus is not on meeting people. Pownce is centered around sharing messages, files, events, and links with already established friends. It was created and currently maintained by Digg founder Kevin Rose, with Leah Culver, Daniel Burka, and Shawn Allen.

Since the launch on June 27, 2007 new members can only join by friend invite or e-mail request.

Now this is not the best article in the world. It’s got some marketingspeak, but it’s not unsalvageable. Yet folks nominated it for deletion, and it was indeed deleted, by claiming:

Previously speedy deleted as spam. While on DRV, where all opinions were to endorse the deletion, the article was recreated. This is advertising about a non-notable website. Corvus cornix 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

DRV is Deletion Review. Call it what you will — the zombie graveyard, the last chance saloon of Wikipedia. It’s basically the ash heap where you can revive articles that have been deleted. The article was originally deleted when four users — Evilclown93, Blueboy96, Ke5crz and Xtifr — all voted to delete. Only User:DGG had any sense to wait for a DRV outcome.

But at DRV, where you get some more eyeballs to second guess the decision, it was also unanimous delete. Three users all voted to keep it deleted — Corvux_cornix, Stifle (what a appropriate name), and Radiant. The lone voice of dissent was user Tawker.

It’s incredible to me that the community in Wikipedia has come to this, that articles so obviously “keep” just a year ago, are being challenged and locked out. When I was active back on the mailing lists in 2004, I was a well known deletionist.

“Wiki isn’t paper, but it isn’t an attic,” I would say. Selectivity matters for a quality encyclopedia.

But it’s a whole different mood in 2007. Today, I’d be labeled a wild eyed inclusionist. I suspect most veteran Wikipedians would be labeled a bleeding heart inclusionist too. How did we raise a new generation of folks who want to wipe out so much, who would shoot first, and not ask questions whatsoever?

It’s as if there is a Soup Nazi culture now in Wikipedia. There are throngs of deletion happy users, like grumpy old gatekeepers, tossing out customers and articles if they don’t comply to some new prickly hard-nosed standard. It used to be if an article was short, someone would add to it. If there was spam, someone would remove it. If facts were questionable, someone would research it. The beauty of Wikipedia was the human factor — reasonable people interacting and collaborating, building off each other’s work. It was important to start stuff, even if it wasn’t complete. Assume good faith, neutral point of view and if it’s not right, {{sofixit}}. Things would grow.

Today, {{sodeleteit}} is the norm. And it’s not with a smile, regret or even a note to the user. It’s usually in insultingly bureaucratic code: “Salt it… A7 and G11… DRV“.

It’s like I’m in some netherworld from the movie Brazil, being asked for my Form 27B(stroke)6.

If anyone knows all the codes on the Deletion Criteria page, you are a danger to Wikipedia. You are a menace. Because it used to be that users thought about the value of an article first. As a thinking individual and Wikipedian, you were expected to decide based on its merit, rather than trying to shoehorn it into a deletion category.

It was never like this before. What’s happened?

In a drive for article quality, there have been new policies: citing references, writing biography of living persons and picking reliable sources. They are all good things, but if and only if they are coupled with existing community values that built Wikipedia — assume good faith, don’t bite the newbies (or even oldies), use the talk page, open lines of communication and support each others’ work. We’ve lost these values. The community has gotten so big you cannot recognize people anymore. It lost the village feel a while ago, but it’s not even a town or city anymore, it’s on the cusp of becoming an impersonal bureaucratic slog depicted in Apple’s 1984 video.

What can we do? Can the community model be rehabilitated? I welcome suggestions, from Wikipedians, technologists, sociologists, urban planners, anthropologists and anyone with a clue.

There’s one thing I can do. Take it back, one article at a time. Educate the young folks, that it’s not about forms, A7, G11, not using edit summaries and ignoring talk pages.

So here goes my voyage into gonzo journalism. I’m undeleting [[Pownce]] now. Unilaterally. It’s out of process, and it may cause a stink. But I’m being bold in restoring the article, and maybe restoring a bit of Wikipedia’s heritage.

And I’ll report back what happens.

UPDATE: I’ve undeleted the article with this message:

I am undeleting Pownce in the name of common sense. There was an era in Wikipedia when a web site detailed in Business Week [1], started by a prominent Internet entrepreneur, and widely spoken about on the Internet would be more than ample notability to be included. So I am making this stand in the spirit of Wikipedia, for its original roots, for its community values and the triumph of rational thought over mindless A7, G11 and DRV nonesense. I claim this article back in the grand tradition of the wiki. I hope you will join me. — Fuzheado | Talk 22:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Kelly Martin seems to have been inspired by my complaining about this oddity in IRC the other day. Here’s her take on Pownce in Wikipedia.

99 thoughts on “Unwanted: New articles in Wikipedia

  1. Pingback: Web 2.0 e Wikipedia. Mi fido? « 90% perspiration

  2. Yes, but many entries are being deleted for the wrong reasons. It’s not an issue of over-productivity, but of immaturity. Petty revenge antics belong on a playground, not in a so-called encyclopedia. As for maintenance of articles, Britannica does it better with less staff and no volunteers. Deleting valuable, worthy articles is not the answer. It’s finally apparent, the failures and weaknesses of Wikipedia’s present model– Wikipedia will either grow up or fade out.

  3. Griot and Calton, oh, I mean, Davey,

    Here’s where you can read the article and comments section, where it says that SF Weekly, i.e., non-tabloid, writer Mary Spicuzza resigned for another position prior to the article’s release, and that her managing editor confirms it.

    http://www.sfweekly.com/2008-02-13/news/wikipedia-idiots-the-edit-wars-of-san-francisco/

    Oh, but you know this, because you’ve been committing libel all over this site and the Internet. Tasty lawsuit material indeed. I see the sister of the author has reported you for stalking and libel as well. Have fun!

    Nathan

  4. I think it’s just apalling that an investigative (not a “tabloid”) journalist should be forced to resign from her newspaper simply for investigating the online jerk who tormented her mentally ill sister. Doesn’t anyone have any respect for the mentally ill anymore?

  5. debby,

    I can’t seem to find any evidence that the author was forced to resign, or that her sister is ill. A very good story. Informative, well-written piece. Thank you for drawing my attention to it.

    From the SF Weekly website:

    An Open Letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

    To Whom It May Concern:

    I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source. I am none of the persons I am being accused of and do not suffer from Dissociative Identity Disorder, formerly known as MPD. My attorney, Richard Rosenthal, has been supplied with these facts along with a request that all false claims, slanderous remarks and defaming content concerning me be removed promptly from the site. Thank you.

    Sincerely,
    Jeanne Marie Spicuzza

    I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister’s fights with Griot and her sister’s role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.

    Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly — February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM

  6. I have been reading various posts on the Internet and share sentiments from the “Wikipedia Idiots” article comments page. It is an embarrassment to an Internet project like Wikipedia that strives to be an educational resource. Truly sad. I will no longer support nor recommend Wikipedia.

    “This article and the associated comments show the reasons why I decided to terminate my involvement with Wikipedia. I concluded that I either needed to be willing to fight with other editors or I needed to take abuse. I do not want to do either.

    I have seen and experienced more abusive behaviour on Wikipedia than I have ever seen anywhere else on the internet. Why editors would want to continue contributing in such a hostile environment is beyond me.”

    Comment by trying to be anonymous — March 9, 2008 @ 12:27AM

  7. “I have seen and experienced more abusive behaviour on Wikipedia than I have ever seen anywhere else on the internet. Why editors would want to continue contributing in such a hostile environment is beyond me.”

    Boyo, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen…

  8. Mary Spicuzz showed up in the newsroom yesterday. Chuckling all around… She asked for her job back… More chuckling…

  9. I edited this story and I can assure you that Mary did not get fired for this story or any other. Mary decided to leave the paper to take a job with a local documentary filmmaker. She gave her notice before the Wikipedia story was published. She disclosed to me early in the reporting process her sister’s fights with Griot and her sister’s role is mentioned high up in our story. Bottom line: We stand by the story.

    Comment by Will Harper, Managing Editor, SF Weekly — February 26, 2008 @ 01:55PM

  10. The salary of the chief executive of the large corporation is not a market
    award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal
    gesture by the individual to himself.
    – John Kenneth Galbraith, “Annals of an Abiding Liberal”

    —————————————————————————————————-
    http://xanga.com/alejandrovalenzuelaff

  11. Hey – this is interesting. We studied the Mary Spicuzza article in my journalism class. It was a very interesting discussion about whether Spicuzza should have or should have not been fired for using her newspaper’s resources to undertake a personal matter involving her sister. A textbook case, the professor said.

  12. I interviewed my mother twice in 2006 and wrote an article about her for Wikipedia. She’s internationally recognized in “Who’s Who in America”, with IMDb credits, and the article carried solid references, and her work was blessed by the Pope. The articles were clearly deleted out of personal animosity. It’s appalling.

  13. Wow, now you’re defaming the article subject’s daughter? That is truly sick. How does one contact the owner of this blog?

  14. Pingback: Andrew Lih » Blog Archive » The Pownce Update

  15. Air travel has become a major part of our society, with industries and individuals depending on air transport for their livelihood. But have you ever wondered what happens to the artifacts of our airborne culture when they’re no longer needed? More..
    xrtst303a

  16. I know the feeling about deletions. The article on Rolando Gomez, which was approved years ago after a deletion review, is currently in deletion review. It had been nominated for a second AfD, only after the original deletionist, Ryulong along with the help of Stifle did everything to delete it. Ryulong went so far, that during the 2nd AfD, he would delete links that were posted that established notability about Gomez, a three time author, public speaker, and one of the 30 world-wide selected Lexar Elite Photographers. Not to mention Gomez was selected in 1994 by the Department of Defense as one of the top five military photographers in the world.

    It was this deletion of reliable source links during an AfD that was horrendous injustice to an article that was allowed on Wikipedia two years ago. During the 2nd Afd, photographer Jerry Avenaim, at the time recently approved on Wikipedia, entered the discussion and his comments were discredited on the basis he had something to gain. Not to mention the Deputy Public Affairs, Operations of the U.S. Air Force even commented during the review, he too was chastised.

    The irony, the Lexar Elite Photographer link is on Avenaims Wiki page as an approved source. Wiki is turning into a “clicks rule” state. It’s sad! I call your attention to this ongoing deletion review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_29#Rolando_Gomez Thanks!

  17. Sounds like Wikipedia. It’s getting worse, too. Sysops and Wales are under the impression that the site is becoming more important, but traffic does not equal respectability, or even reliability, for that matter.

  18. New to Wikepedia. Posted article about my indie label / band. Didn’t know there is a musician section on Wikepedia. My article was similar to what I saw on Wikepedia. Fast deleted. Posted back. Confused. Indefinate block by RYULONG. Gets his kicks this way.

    I say screw Wikipedia and Jimbi Wales. They had something good, but now the NAZIS run Wikipedia – deleting good faith entries without any explanation so users can learn or grow.

  19. I think Chris9086′s “I was bored and searched my username on google” sums up the not quite past adolescence, male demographic of Wikipedia editors and admins. The questions to me are why are these people the predominant group running Wikipedia, and what is it about Wikipedia’s culture or administration that encourages comparatively immature and inexperienced people like Chris9086, or more spectacularly, Essjay, to do so well in the organization?

    It’s my anecdotal impression that Wikipedia’s quality has actually gotten worse and not better in areas like basic usage and spelling over the past two to three years even as standards have supposedly become more rigorous and administration has become more heavy handed. Maybe someone could do a time series spell check over the life of an article.

  20. The content of the article there will be considerable attractive people to appreciate, I have to thank you such an article.

  21. Great post however I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on this topic? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Thanks!

  22. Hi there just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your post seem to be running off the screen in Chrome. I’m not sure if this is a formatting issue or something to do with web browser compatibility but I thought I’d post to let you know. The design look great though! Hope you get the problem resolved soon. Cheers

  23. Hey there! Someone in my Facebook group shared this site with us so I came to give it a look. I’m definitely enjoying the information. I’m bookmarking and will be tweeting this to my followers! Exceptional blog and fantastic style and design.

  24. HEELo SFAM!
    first, sorry my baby english..

    thanks for writing back to me,,about DVD KURUIZAKI THANDERROAD,
    it will be out 25/june. its first DVD for it.
    I am not sure there are english subtitle or not,,
    but i informe you if i found it.

    many people said KURUIZAKi TAHNDER ROAD is SOGO ISHIIs best movie! i bet it! i also love this movie best! its made by 1979 maybe.. but the movie story like 1986,,
    so its like near future sci-fi. i think TSUKAMOTO and SHOUJIN FUKUI are ex second or third directer in sogo ishi movie.
    ive forgot which one they help. oh,,i have to said i also do you remenber TETSUOs first thrash scene? like high speed and sunrize down etc.. its SHOJIN take that part of film in TETSUO movie.
    shojin really love that technic when he shootong film earier.

    this web page really cool! great! talk to you later!

  25. Great post however , I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this subject? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit further. Bless you!

  26. I’m really loving the theme/design of your site. Do you ever run into any browser compatibility issues? A few of my blog audience have complained about my website not working correctly in Explorer but looks great in Safari. Do you have any recommendations to help fix this problem?

  27. This is the perfect site for anybody who hopes to learn more about this topic. You understand so much knowledge that it is hard to argue with you — not that I really would want to do so. You definitely put a new spin on a subject that’s been discussed for quite some time. Great stuff!

  28. You are so cool! I do not believe I’ve read through something like that before. So good to find someone with original thoughts on this issue. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up. This site is something that is needed on the internet, someone with some originality!

  29. Hola! I’ve been following your site for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Austin Texas! Just wanted to mention keep up the fantastic job!

  30. My relatives every time say that I am killing my time here at web, except I know I am getting knowledge daily by reading thes nice articles or reviews.

  31. I’ll immediately seize your rss as I can’t to find your email subscription link or newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Kindly allow me recognize in order that I may just subscribe. Thanks.

  32. Hi there, i read your blog from time to time and i own a similar one and i was just wondering if you get a lot of spam responses?

    If so how do you prevent it, any plugin or anything you can advise?
    I get so much lately it’s driving me crazy so any support is very much appreciated.

  33. I was curious if you ever thought of changing the structure of your website?
    Its very well written; I love what youve got to say.
    But maybe you could a little more in the way of content so people could connect with it better.
    Youve got an awful lot of text for only having one or 2 pictures.
    Maybe you could space it out better?

  34. Does your site have a contact page? I’m having a tough time locating it but, I’d like to
    send you an e-mail. I’ve got some recommendations for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great website and I look forward to seeing it grow over time.

  35. I definitely wanted to type a quick word to express gratitude to you for these unique secrets you are placing at this site. My particularly long internet search has finally been compensated with reliable facts and techniques to talk about with my companions. I would declare that we site visitors actually are undeniably endowed to dwell in a notable place with so many brilliant professionals with very beneficial strategies. I feel somewhat happy to have seen your entire web pages and look forward to so many more pleasurable minutes reading here. Thank you once again for all the details.

  36. I have to thank you for the efforts you have put in penning this
    blog. I’m hoping to see the same high-grade blog posts by
    you in the future as well. In truth, your creative writing abilities has motivated me to get my own website now ;)

  37. “Being recognized by the state of Sweden is a large step for Kopimi. Your loved one will remember your thoughtful gift forever. Some of these service providers are ensuring the delivery of completed posters within five working days and so select a reliable store and place your order with your photo and get the completed posters right at the comfort of your home.

  38. Excellent blog right here! Also your site a lot up fast!
    What host are you using? Can I get your associate
    link to your host? I want my website loaded
    up as quickly as yours lol

  39. Simply want to say your article is as astonishing.
    The clarity for your publish is simply spectacular and that i can assume you’re an expert on this subject.
    Well together with your permission allow me to take hold of your feed
    to keep up to date with coming near near post.
    Thank you 1,000,000 and please continue the rewarding work.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>