Save Frank Arrigo
I added an entry into Wikipedia last week.
The entry, Frank Arrigo – notable Australian tech and Microsoft celebrity and yes, he’s my boss.
Well the locals over at Wikipedia seem to think that Frank doesn’t deserve to be there. That he’s “not notable” enough and now the entry is being considered for deletion.
As the original author of the article, obviously, I disagree.
So, if you feel that Frank’s entry should be saved (and the my faith in Wikipedia should be restored):
- Contribute to the article
- Contribute to the deletion discussion in a meaningful way
This is my first real contribution to Wikipedia and I’ve got some observations.
Seeing that the article was under the axe, I decided to rally the troops. “The locals” (or “the others” as I’m gonna start referring to them) have taken issue with the fact some of the supporters of article have had some connection or existing knowledge of Frank and Microsoft Australia.
I don’t get it, of course some of the supporters know about him, isn’t that logical? How is that an issue? You wouldn’t defend his “notability” if you didn’t know about him and you wouldn’t know of the articles (and subsequent deletion discussion) existence if you weren’t notified of it.
Also, since when does the majority have to agree for something to be valid? I would be disappointed if “the others” won the case for the article’s deletion. A bunch of noisy locals shouldn’t shape Wikipedia, all you need is a few people to agree on it for it to have validity.
There are a few others how are rallying behind the cause:
- Laurel Papworth has put the call out to spread the word and to save Frank
- Meg from Dipping into the Blogpond has her thoughts too. Meg was responsible for collating a list of popular australian bloggers which is being called as evidence in the virtual courtroom of Wikipedia. She has some very valid thoughts as to the importance of the list.
- Nick Hodge also puts the call out to save Frank
- Frank has mentioned the article on his blog but is not getting involved in the conversation
Oh, and for the record, me adding the article was unsolicited by Frank. Actually, I don’t think he knows it’s me that did it.
-dg
UPDATE: Nick Hodge has noticed that the article has been removed and has aptly pronounced the article dead :-(
I thought I would address one or two of the points above:
Firstly, the sort of “them vs us” mentality together with the need to having to label the “them” in such derogatory ways, which reminds me of a particularly odious marketing company I used to work for in my undergraduate days as well as one or two religious groups of which I am aware.
Secondly, some of those whom you are characterising as “noisy locals” have quite distinguished records of their own, having worked hard to get the Australian Wikipedia on its feet in the past year – I am genuinely in awe of their efforts. The quality of articles generated by some of the Delete voters in this debate is of a very high standard, with some reaching Wikipedia’s “featured article” status and fostering research collaborations which have dragged all manner of material out of the archives about our country and world that really should be on an encyclopaedia.
I think it’s actually quite a good system – there are clear and unambiguous rules for inclusion, and the bulk of voters are readers of the Australian deletions queue, which generally (but not always) means you have Australian editors deciding the fate of Australian articles, something which exists on practically no other international medium. Ironically, if the standard was lower as some would like to see, between 2 and 4 of the Delete voters would indeed have their own articles due to their outside activities.
Cultural psychology is a truly fascinating enterprise! There is a study to be done for someone’s Honours or Masters somewhere (if it hasn’t already been done) into online collaborative research cultures and the politics of inclusion. It is my observation that conflict of interest at some level is usually key in the, shall we say, more interesting deletion debates.
Sincerely,
BPL (Perth, WA)
I think you might be missing the point a little.
It’s not about a majority ruling on a Wikipedia entry, to quote Wikipedia:
“If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia”
I don’t think there is a question about the validity of the entry. The entry is valid and on that reason alone, it should stay.
But does the page add knowledge that is of any worth to someone?
If it is to stay, then the it certainly needs to be expanded upon, based on the content that is there, it should not exist.
Some people have commented that Frank is the Aussie Scoble. If that is so, a look at the Wikipedia entry for Scoble would give some idea as to what an entry should contain to be of worth to a Wikipedia reader.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Scoble
I must admit I know absolutely zilch about this guy. Mr Arrigo, that is. At first glance I did think, “What’s so important about this bloke? What has he done exactly?” The entry did strike me as, well, vanity.
Note that this was just my initial, uninformed, reaction so I’m perfectly happy to be corrected.
I’m not voting either way yet, but if Arianne Caoili can have her page, then why not Frank Arrigo?
Frank for Dancing with the Stars…