Bill Tieleman isn't ready for Wikipedia "deletion" just yet! It's not every day that one learns that you have been both discovered and "Nominated for Deletion" in the same month by Wikipedia !
But that's what's going on over at Wikipedia, the online "Free Encylcopedia" that is "written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay" as they redundantly put it.
First of all - I appreciate the author who put up the short piece on me and what I do and have done - thanks for that.
Second - what have I done to deserve deletion in less than four weeks!
Honestly, I have no idea. You can try and decipher how Wikipedia works through various conversations between the editors and authors via the links above but it's all a bit of an Alice In Wiki-Wonderland to me.
The article is accurate, though it combines a number of odd and varied points about my brilliant career to date while missing others.
I have had absolutely nothing to do with creation of the Wikipedia article, do not know the author or any editors and am not lobbying to keep it online.
But I do think my readers might find it interesting that my potential 15 minutes of fame on Wikipedia could already be up - and the article might be deleted because it is apparently "vanital" - a word that does not appear to exist.
I'm guessing it's a Wiki-derivative of "vanity" and hopefully not of "venal" but who knows?
Since I had nothing to do with its appearance, the "vanital" charge seems, well, immaterial.
.
5 comments:
Inclusion in Wikipedia is governed in part by a set of guidelines concerning "notability". Essentially, there have to be enough references available (and, preferably, included in the article) to justify the idea that the article can be written in a verifiable manner. If there aren't, then the page usually gets nominated for deletion after a while.
(Some minor context: there are three routes to deletion on Wikipedia. "Speedy deletion" has a set list of criteria but is fast and relatively binding. "Proposed deletion" takes a week, but can delete just about anything so long as no one objects. "Articles for deletion" discussions involve a week-long or so discussion, which is a little like a vote in some ways that one's comment is canonically preceded by a simple summary such as "Keep", "Delete", or "Merge".)
A pro tip: if you need help, there's a web interface for an IRC chat channel where some Wikipedians hang out to give help to newbies. I highly recommend it.
I think they're just jealous (whoever "they" are)!
Not to worry, as I have had my posts on the Tyee nominated for "Best" post, only later to be deleted for "whatever" reason.
Therefore my post have been the "Best deleted"!
I'm a former STV campaigner and as such don't agree with you very often Bill. I think you're generally way off base and would much prefer that your writing was not permitted because of your misleading style. But that would amount to censorship which is an even greater sin. It's also what I think of when I read this article and the Wikipedia entry. There is no reason at all that the entry should be deleted, hell I might even add some arguments for keeping it. It sure could use a bit of a revision though. As you said parts of the write-up seemed odd. I would be curious what you think should be added and hopefully someone who knows you better than the original author will do an update.
Oh, come on Bill! You're the most vanital person I know.
Seen mid-afternoon yesterday on the corner of West Broadway and MacDonald Street in the heart of the Premier's electoral district.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/blackbird_hollow/4814858958/
Post a Comment