MLA Wikipedia article on the chopping block
When I created the Massachusetts Library Association article on Wikipedia a while back, I really did mean for it to grow. It wasn’t much to look at, a few details and a bunch of links (which I’m sure attracted the eyes of the eager deleters). I didn’t think I’d be the only one to work on it. I tried to make time to get information from MLA about the organization, but life got in the way. All the same, I didn’t think I’d be the only one trying to grow it out, and I didn’t want to “own” it, so I kinda let it sit organically to see what would happen, but I haven’t looked at it lately.
Earlier this week (while I was away on vacation), I received an email from Pam Davies, a retired librarian in the UK and newly self-dubbed Wikipedia addict, saying that the MLA article had been slotted for deletion. A {{notable}} tag had never been placed on it, so I didn’t know it was in danger. So now there is only 1 more day until the article is deleted, unless there are enough votes to keep it. If you have a minute, please go to the article deletion discussion page and vote to keep/improve this article.
I’ve contacted the archivist at MLA by phone to obtain more information to flesh out the article, I mentioned it on Twitter, and I’m posting it here. Pam has been a total rock star in helping me feverishly try to add bits and pieces of data and citations wherever possible while I wait for information from the archivist (a good amount of it is in the archives at the Boston Public Library, and/or in non-digital format). I also mentioned on the deletion discussion page that I’m making efforts to improve the article with the help of MLA.
One big reason given for the deletion is that the Massachusetts state library association itself is not by nature notable as determined by the novice editor who flagged the article. Steve Lawson saw my tweet about the article on Twitter, and tweeted back a post about the issue of “notability” on Wikipedia, which I found sad and disturbing. I realize that not all deletions are just power plays on Wikipedia, but in perusing the lists and seeing how much work was done on some of these articles, Jason Scott’s point on the subjectivity of “notable” on Wikipedia is very well taken. Perhaps Wikipedia needs more librarians to help maintain those High Watermarks…
Notability is a tricky subject, it’s not actually a criteria for deletion. I agree that this article shouldn’t, and probably won’t be deleted. Having said that, there are some articles that should be deleted.
There is the opinion of course that wikipedia should include everything. This opinion is easy to come to when your edge case gets deleted and the people making decisions cite arcane rules and policies. That is a problem we’re aware of, but not one easily fixed. People spend a great deal of time debating these guidelines, of which there are many. Also, everyone is a volunteer, they cannot be required to explain clearly every time they cite some policy.
It seems reasonable to include everything coming from that background, but we’re also concerned with accuracy. When something is so obscure that no one looks at the page, inaccurate information festers, and misinforms people. The next thing you know we have an article on Seigenthaler saying he killed JFK. It’s a delicate balance, and one that will inevitably make people upset, but I think people are overwhelmingly trying to work on articles in good faith. I think very few deletions on Wikipedia are “power plays”. It is a “rules-based” system, as Steve Lawson says, but we generally think that is a good thing as it hopefully allows for more objectivity.
I hope this doesn’t leave a bad taste in your mouth for wikipedia, as we definitely could use as many librarians are there are available! And like I said, I would be surprised if your article gets deleted, but if you can think of any improvements in the system please let us know!
“Jimmy Wales in my top 8″ -Some angry nerd.
Judson, you’re either intentionally or unintentionally speaking a mistruth. Notability is without a doubt a criteria for deletion; “I never heard of it / minor person in (subject)” and endless variations pepper the votes constantly. I’ve also witnessed this game played from both sides: a school deleted as being non-notable, then refused creation because a school shooting occurs there, due to “sensationalism” and “respect”/”privacy”. A huge, insane nomic game, never-ending, always changing.
The argument of “we can’t let everything on, then we’d get stuff nobody would know about and bad things would happen” is devoid of reason. English Wikipedia has over 2,000,000 articles and hundreds more being added daily. Articles that are entirely verifiable are deleted by whim and tiny power-plays, constantly.
I’d love to edit on the wikipedia in your mind, but that’s not the one that comes up in my browser.
Also, your use of “we” in discussing Wikipedia policies and consistencies is silly. The fallacy that everyone who edits Wikipedia gets to speak “for” Wikipedia is one of its most embarassing mutations.
I said “not actually”, and it’s not actually. Yes many people act like it is, and it’s a problem. There is no policy that says articles have to be notable, really. As to the “we”, there are actually consensus views in the community that I agree with, and in so far as I am able to explain them, I don’t see why “we” is inappropriate. For my opinion about this particular deletion please see my comments on the AFD page, I’m cohesion.
I’m glad to see the article remained, by the way!
I think the thing that is really difficult is that a lot of times an article will be minding its own business and someone with a grudge from some other section of Wikipedia will wander through and pick off one article like MLA — ignoring that there are state library association articles for every US state — and there will be a Big AFD Debate about it, without stopping to figure out whether the category of “state library associations” is in and of itself notable. I did some work on this article and it seemed to suffiice, but it makes people scurry around feeling like they have 2-3 days to make something suddenly “notable.” I’m not plugged in with Wikipedia enough anymore to be on top of this, btu I thought the AfD process was deprecated in favor of some other notification-and-improve process so that there wouldn’t have to be these grudge-match last minute scurries like this.
In any event I’m happy this article survived, I just wonder if, like blog, there is now going to be some frontal assault on all the other state libary associations. Guess I should spend some time fixing them up
The article is safe, which I guess is a good thing. For now, anyway. Sadly, I don’t think I have the energy to keep it that way without being sucked into Wikipedia full time and paranoid.
The rules were not originally clear enough to me to figure out how to fix the notable problem — for an organization that really isn’t written about everyday — without the help of a seasoned Wikipedian. The editor who marked the article for deletion was very focused on the “delete it!” part of the discussion, with comments in a really negative and non-productive tone. Given that there was never a notable tag to alert people (like n00bs like me) that work needed to be done to make it a keeper, and what kind of work it would take, to keep it from being marked for deletion (MFD), the “you’ve got to be kidding me,” you should know better tone really wasn’t helping at all.
I started the article figuring that Wikipedia was a place where you didn’t need to commit to an article when you created it, and that ownership belonged to everyone, and if it didn’t work out, the reasons were clear and/or feedback hadn’t been pursued. It seems more apparent now that an article creator who cares even a little bit really needs to own articles and care for them to a point of possession and aggressive defense. I’ve unfortunately learned this lesson my first time out.
This indicator of the _culture_ of Wikipedia’s hard-core minders (not just based on my experience, but on the caveats from so many other people who have spoken to me about this) makes me highly averse to editing participation on Wikipedia, especially since I’m not looking to invest massive amounts of time and energy. Why waste the time and deal with the aggida if you never know when or how you’ll be bitten by unclear guidelines and petty power plays?