It was the wedding of the decade 겁쟁이페달. Catherine (Kate) Middleton marrying Prince William, becoming one of the most watched couples in the world.
As is the case for any celebrity wedding, the biggest question being asked leading up to the big day became, What will the bride wear 다운로드?
So it was only fitting that the dress receiving so much global speculation and attention would get a page of its own in Wikipedia, right 프레젠테이션 템플릿 다운로드? After all, it fit the criteria for notability, receiving significant coverage from gads of reliable sources, independent of the subject 캣츠 영화 다운로드. And yet within minutes of the page being created, the page was marked for speedy deletion.
The discussion page makes the deletionists’ views clear:
- This is frankly trivial, and surely isn’t notable enough to be on wikipedia 다운로드. Request deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
- I strongly agree 삼성 앱스 다운로드! The sheer presence of this article is one of the lowest points ever reached by Wikipedia! What amazes me is that there’s acculturatede people (since the article was well written) who has such interests, and free time to lose to devoted themselves for such totally irrelevant arguments 위닝일레븐 다운로드. —”’Attilios”’ (talk) 16:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
And yet the above editors ignored the key guidelines of Wikipedia 다운로드. So what gives?
No matter how neutral Wikipedia strives to be, the Gestault sum of its articles is influenced by its contributors, which in Wikipedia’s case is a “geeky male in his late 20s” (see Wikipedia’s 2011 editors survey for full results). And this is what results in a cargo-cult editing environment, where the rules and guidelines are often ignored in favor of a particular editor’s bias 뷰2 킷캣.
In the case of Kate Middleton’s wedding dress page in Wikipedia, the deletionists lacked editing integrity, instead relying upon their own inherent biases as argumentative evidence.
Jimmy Wales recently stated his brainchild is losing editors, and while it hasn’t reached crisis-level, it is a point concern. The fact is, the group that has built up the world’s #1 open knowledge resource is turning away and losing editors, of varyings ages, backgrounds, genders, and most importantly, viewpoints, at the cost of Wikipedia’s long-term growth and viability.
Wikipedia is working hard to address the problem, but a solution will only come about if more people understand why having a diverse group of editors is critical. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, “All history becomes subjective.” In Wikipedia’s case, “All of Wikipedia becomes subjective.” While I’m sure a lot of folks have little to no interest in the wedding gown of a powerless figurehead (myself included), you have to imagine what the content looks like of more controversial topics like birth control, religion, racial and ethnic history, etc, when only a small demographic is editing and policing them.
I’ll be exploring this point in my next post detailing my experience editing Wikipedia’s “Man” page and the edit war that broke out as a result.
TO BE CONTINUED…