26th Oct 2007
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…
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…
Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »
RSS
