Broadening the Definition of Drama

~ Cheryl

No, this is not another flame war post. Or at least not directly. Mike Glyer, perhaps inspired by some of the complaints about an audiobook being nominated as a Dramatic Presentation, has jumped in his TARDIS and gone back to 1971 when, shock horror, a collection of songs was nominated. It also gave him the opportunity to indulge in a bit of Wikipedia-bashing.

9 thoughts on “Broadening the Definition of Drama”

  1. I see that Wikipedia have fixed their error, now they’ve been subjected to public embarrassment.

    Oh, I also see that they’re willing to accept some blogs as being “authoritative” now.

    A day or two ago, they were caught quietly trying to delete all records of the modern Gnostic religious revival.

    I wonder when they’re going to get their house in order?

  4. “Wikipedia” should not be portrayed a sentient entity. Rather, it is a web site which is edited by many people.

    It may well be that some Wikipedia administrators have deleted articles about Gnosticism for no good reason, but I regularly follow such Wikipedia pages as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, Wikipedia:Deletion review, and Wikipedia:Administrator’s noticeboard/Incidents, and I don’t recall seeing any recent controversy over Gnostic-related articles or complaints about them being deleted. Hence, I find it doubtful that any anti-Gnostic Wikipedians could be said to be acting on behalf of the Wikipedia community.

    By the same token, the person who fixed the description of Blows Against the Empire was not some Wikipedia administrator who was doing so out of shame at being caught in the error. It was 11-time Hugo nominee and long time Wikipedian Steven H. Silver, doing so to improve the encyclopedia’s accuracy. (I’m not giving away his identity inappropriately; he edits Wikipedia as User:Shsilver and links to his LiveJournal account from there.)

  5. @Joshua You are free to doubt, as you are free to stand up in support of Wikipedia. I have my own opinions on the matter, and likewise I’m free to express them.

    In my experience, Wikipedia needs to get their house in order. I’m not really interested in ennumerating those experiences, just as I’m not really interested in either Arguing On The Internet, or in convincing you otherwise.

    I am, however, glad that you are a representative of a tendency within the Wikipedia community towards that goal of getting the house in order. I hope you devote as much or more effort towards that goal as you do towards defending Wikipedia in public.

    Thanks.

  6. Joshua:

    I certainly don’t regard Wikipedia as a sentient entity. Just like any other organization, it is made up of people, but has no group mind. It does, however, have people who are supposedly in charge of the vast colletion of cats, and they are doubtless engaged in an ongoing herding effort. I wish them luck, but I don’t anticipate seeing a lot of success. Their project is too big, and too easy a target, for it to ever be free of controversy.

  7. DrJon: Could you tell me the specific title of the Gnostic-related article that was deleted or put up for deletion? I couldn’t even figure out what incident you were referring to even after you mentioned it here and I went looking for it.

  8. Hi, @Joshua.

    Please believe me when I say that I really have neither the time (this reply alone took over 30 minutes–which I did not really have–to write, including text recovery time when my browser crashed just as I’d almost finished) nor the inclination (I am not pointing this incident out as a “trouble report” to be actioned, but as an example of an ongoing problem) to engage on this issue, and I do not intend for my comments to be seen as an invitation. That being said, the fact that you, with your extensive Wikipedia experience, couldn’t find anything about this incident is in itself worth considering. However, you can find information about and links to the particular incident I’m referring to here. Obviously, there are reasons for this incident, reasons entirely explainable within the zeitgeist of Wikipedia. And no doubt this particular situation will be rectified as the various factors involved resolve themselves. But even standing at a remove from the Wikipedia community, I see situations like this arise frequently: this is not an isolated incident, and I’d suggest that you should further consider the point I made about your inability to find this particular one (even when the subject was clearly delineated). I encourage you to continue your own research, and to beware the temptation to understand the underlying problems hastily. And good luck. Your desire to improve Wikipedia is as commendable as its original creation was.

Comments are closed.