How To Get In Wikipedia: Get An Article Written About How You Aren't In Wikipedia

from the circular-logic dept

A Las Vegas-based Celtic band was the subject of a local newspaper article discussing how it wasn’t listed in Wikipedia. A member of the band, Killian’s Angels, noticed this when she checked the Wikipedia article about the soundtrack to the Grand Theft Auto IV video game, upon which the band appears. Every other band had a Wikipedia entry, so eventually one of the band’s fans wrote one about them — and it was deleted later that day because the band wasn’t, according to Wikipedia editors, “notable.” Cue the newspaper article… and then the follow-up, saying the band was back in Wikipedia, with an entry linking to the original story. A Wikipedia spokesman told the paper that “Sometimes furor over a deletion leads to a newspaper article, he said, which leads to notability that warrants a Wikipedia page.” So a band isn’t notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but then an article saying just that makes them notable enough for inclusion?

Filed Under: ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “How To Get In Wikipedia: Get An Article Written About How You Aren't In Wikipedia”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Jack Humphrey (user link) says:

How about being all over the place online?

Notability is clearly subjective in their eyes. Many people are exempt from being considered notable because of what they are notable for: self promotion and branding. The assumption is any mention of them is a ploy for more self branding and cannot be taken seriously, even if they are notable as hell.

Grae says:

Re: How about being all over the place online?

Looking over Wikipedia’s Notability Policy it really seems to be worded just vaguely enough so that it can be interpreted differently depending on how you define “notable”.

Their policy for “speedy deletion” really boils down to making it easy for articles to be removed if an editor agrees with the person who marked said articles for deletion.

This story really highlights the absurdity of bureaucracy (in all cases, not just at Wikimedia).

Mrrar says:

Re: Deletions at all make Wikipedia useless.

It continues to amaze me how Conservatives don’t understand that Colbert’s joke about “Reality having a liberal bias” is… you know.. Funny because it’s true :-..

Wikipedia, in theory, works off of consensus of authoritative sources and discussion. Left wingers, intellectuals, academics… They tend to use these items to prove their points.

Conservatives, especially those of the talk show host variety, seem to think that a minority of scientists, non-authoritative sources, and their ‘gut’ are all more reliable than those sources the left tends towards.

That’s not to say that the Left is always right, and the Right is always wrong.. Simply that the Left tends towards sources that are easier to verify, where as the Right tends towards sources that are.. well.. not.

But go ahead on to Conservapedia and read about how Barack Obama is the first Muslim President, and note that the Tuskegee Experiments seemingly never happened, and you clutch onto that reality! Clutch onto it like it was a life preserver!

Zubin says:

This is a combination of mistakes but not a systematic flaw in wikipedia

First off, the article could easily have had more citations to satisfy Wikipedia’s verifiability requirements (which are absolutely necessary as Wikipedia is a tertiary source). The fulfillment of notability guidelines (which are just that– guidelines) basically follows easily once something is verifiable.

The wiki method has worked fine for this article, and it will continue to be improved, especially with more citations. The incidental article about its deletion, while fun, would not be material to its inclusion in the long run, as such an article would not be written in a trusted source without some notability as it is. While I’m sure Jay Walsh (the spokesman) is an expert on many things Wikipedian, I feel he didn’t convey the extra layer of what happened here.

Nothing truly surprising here, just a little roundabout way of the wiki method paying off.

Zubin says:

One more thing to clear up

Many people tend to think that everyone in Wikipedia agrees most of the time. The fact is, most of the time things never reach a point where consensus is even required, people do things on their own. Even when consensus is reached, its usually consensus of a tiny fraction of editors. This is a wonderful model that allows Wikipedia to grow as fast as it does. But it also means that Wikipedia’s editors should not be considered as a group, nor even its admins.

This quote of the post above (which takes some ideas from the newspaper article) illustrates this inaccuracy: “it was deleted later that day because the band wasn’t, according to Wikipedia editors”. The quote needs a “some” before “Wikipedia” to be accurate.

Again, I don’t think anything went wrong here, it just took a different path than usual to get to a good start of an article.

Chet says:

If there wasn’t a baseline for inclusion then everyone just writes an article about themselves and the encyclopedia becomes a massive spam trap. The standards for notability are pretty low: if there are 2 features about you in a reliable source (newspaper, magazine, TV show) then you are considered “notable”. It is hilariously ironic that having a newspaper write two articles about how you aren’t notable enough to be included in Wikipedia DOES make you notable to be included.

long island girl (user link) says:

wikipedia articles

Wikipedia has always been known to be a very reliable information website so it means that the editor has to make sure that the pages that they are including in the website are good. However, editors must also have certain standards that they need to follow and not just because they feel like adding or deleting the article. everything must be fair to everyone.

Stephen Pate (user link) says:

Wiki war

It’s easy to get some free publicity with Wikipedia. You just post something they don’t like, they take it down and you report that in the media. Instant attention. Although I hadn’t planned it that way, it’s what happened when juvenile Wiki editors hit my stubborn streak. Wiki War hits Disability Alert It gave Disability Alert national media attention across Canada. Apparently the Wiki editor sits in his room pouring over Wiki entries 18 hours a day, that is when he’s not working as a stooge for the Conservative Party.After my Wiki war got national Canadian media attention, some newspapers sent a memo banning Wiki quotes which is a smart move.

Jules says:

I guess the editor didn’t know the band would finagle a newspaper article in retaliation… With a little more foresight they could of prevented such a ridiculous article from being printed (what a shameful article.) If the band is playing Celtic music then they probably have enough balls to get an article written… DUH, shouldn’t of deleted that page.

Damien auksorius says:


Hi my name is damien auksorius , I’ve been trying for years to get my name on the wikipedia site , I find that famous people can write articles about themselves but when I try to write an article it seems to get deleted , please wikipedia , help the little guy who wants to be recognised , thanks again , damien auksorius plumbing

Amelia Harper (user link) says:

My Take On Wikipedia services

Are you willing to grow your business presence online? American Wiki Writers is the right choice for your organization. It describes how to make a Wikipedia page for a celebrity to increase your brand reputation. They offer an affordable and reliable solution to your business with a wide variety of services. The company works with a qualified and dedicated team of writers who are ready to serve you to the best of their knowledge and wisdom.

Wizards of Wiki (profile) says:

Wikipedia has for years had a problem with understanding what is notable and what isn’t. I’m not surprised they struggled to make a decision about this band – music seems to be one genre they struggle with the most! Despite this article dating back to 2009, it sadly still applies today. However there are Wikipedia writing services out there to help anyone that should need them.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...