Saturday, September 24, 2005

Deep Water, Ontario

A little more than a week ago, I was browsing through the Wikipedia and eventually stumbled onto an entry for the Stanford Daily, the campus newspaper at Stanford. So I decided that the Wikipedia could benefit from an entry on UCSB's student paper, the Daily Nexus. I'm biased, of course, but I think the Daily Nexus is an especially good paper, with a readership that includes many people who are not students. We also have been around for about thirty years and have made national news more than once.

Thus, I hammered out a brief history for the Daily Nexus. And I thought it was pretty good — informational, interesting but as unbiased as I could write it.

The next day, some guy suggested that my article should be deleted. With the Wikipedia, these subjects are debated beforehand. And my article is still being debated. This ability to question the validity or necessity of articles is part of what makes the Wikipedia such a generally good source of information, but I can't help feel a little offended when this entry — a particularly good one, I would say — is being questioned while others — like the piddly entry for the Standford Daily, for example — is allowed to stay, unquestioned. I mean, fuck — we're allowing an entry for fucking Toadette, for God's sake. Toadette!

Anyway, you can see how the debate over my article's validity has gone so far by clicking here. The fight seems to be swinging in my direction, but it's not a wholly democratic process, unfortunately.

This just isn't American, goddamnit.

[only five left]

No comments:

Post a Comment