My Wikipedia-page revisited…

On: September 28, 2009
Print Friendly
About Sander Leegwater
Hi, I'm Alexander (or Sander for friends) Leegwater – a Multimedia Designer, Bachelor in the Interactive Media at the Hogeschool van Amsterdam – and currently working on my Masters of (New) Media at the 'Universiteit van Amsterdam'. Besides schooling, I'm working as a part-time 'front-end' web-developer at www.digital4u.nl.

Website
http://sanderleegwater.nl    

Last week all of the Master students where assigned to start a ‘new’ Wikipedia article, which we all did but with which most of us had a lot of troubles. Most articles where deleted within minutes after creation, others where submitted to be deleted for various reasons. My own article about ‘Richard A. Rogers’, one of our Professors, was also deleted very fast – reason? – the article was biased and self-promoting according to the ‘WikiAdmin’ who deleted it.. The fact that the same page already existed in the English Wikipedia (@http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Rogers) and has about the same content doesn’t seem to matter!

Of course I was a little pissed at these developments, you try your best to make an honest contribution and get shot down for apparently no good reason. So when I was presenting my work for class that week I thought it would be fun to mess a little with the system, I opened the page again and put the article back, only this time I didn’t care about the mark-up.. and voilà – the contribution was allowed to live on! While I expected it to be deleted again real soon, it is still up there. Go and see for your self @: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_a._rogers. But I still don’t understand it, maybe someone else could explain the logic behind this?

7 Responses to “My Wikipedia-page revisited…”
  • September 28, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    Yet another awkward case of moderation. It seems the Wiki guard dogs just randomly jump onto something once in a while..

    Good thing your entry is still up though!

  • October 5, 2009 at 11:24 am

    Maybe revisiting your Dutch might help. There are quite some ‘kromme zinnen’. Google Translate is not enough to pass as an encyclopedic article.

  • October 5, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Absolutely agree with Theo. I would rewrite the article, not so much that it is an exact translation of the English article but in order to write an article with a good flow. The amount of ‘kromme zinnen’ is quite excessive.

    On top of that, the layout of the article is quite messy. There are a lot of semi-wiki-formatted links in there that aren’t links, etc.

    van de [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ American_Society_for_Information_Science_and_Technology American Society for Information Science and Technology] (ASIS&T).[2]

    ^^^ fix layout.

  • October 5, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    Hmm, I didn’t use an auto-translator for the text, did it all by myself.. so I guess if the article really is ‘grammatically incorrect’ (=’kromme zinnen’) its entirely my fault, but in my opinion I didn’t do that bad of a job.. Of course, this is subjective and for everyone to decide by themselves.

    About the format, like I explained (but probably not good enough) in this post, they deleted the original ‘good formatted’ article and I just copied my PDF version back into Wikipedia (re-creating the article) which gave a lot of formatting problems but this time the article wasn’t deleted.. It’s even still up there in exactly the same (bad) form, but I didn’t feel like spending time (again) on a good format if it was going to be deleted within minutes again (as I expected, but didn’t happen..). So I feel my question is still viable, why did they delete the ‘good’ version and keep the ‘bad’ one?

  • October 6, 2009 at 10:31 am

    *Minor update*
    Saw that there was some activity on the page by editors, combined with these comments and Rogers mail, I decided to do a touch up again on the formatting and some other minor grammatical corrections.

  • October 17, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    […] the last couple of weeks I got some responses to my post concerning the revisitation of my Wikipedia article about Richard A. Rogers – in which I told that I was stupefied by the speed with which I was […]

  • October 17, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    […] the last couple of weeks I got some responses to my post concerning the revisitation of my Wikipedia article about Richard A. Rogers – in which I told that I was stupefied by the speed with which I was […]

Leave a Reply