Daggering Wikipedia: How to increase the chance of having your Wikipedia article published?

On: October 3, 2010
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Emina Sendijarevic
Some find a great usefulness and comfort in new media, while others complain about the loss of privacy, intimacy and sociability. Technology in my opinion challenges people to rethink their position towards old standards, it challenges them to deconstruct the concepts they thought were embedded in old values and traditions. Instead of blaming or praising new media, we should see new media as an introspective tool for managing our world. New media (qualitative) research and social media analytics are a way to explore and understand every-day-real-life human interaction.


When thinking of a subject to write about on Wikipedia, a couple of considerations crossed my mind. It’s easy to write about a scientific subject that isin line with Wikipedia’s core principles (NPOV, no original content and verifiability), but what about highly controversial and disputed subjects or the ones about sex and violence? Can Wikipedians reach consensus over those kind of subjects?

From the policies and guidelines section of Wikipedia, it is ‘clear’ that content created on Wikipedia is always in a process of editing (wars). The guidelines are there to help the users create content as objective as possible:

“[Wikipedia] does not employ hard-and-fast rules, its policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies describe standards that (within the limits of common sense) all users should normally follow, and guidelines are meant to contain best practices for doing so.”

What does that ‘common sense’ imply? Entries like “List of sex positions” or “Lynching” that are accompanied with explicit visual material and words, give me the impression that there is no ethical boundary which is established through consensus, nor common sense. However, I’m aware that it is quite difficult to create a new entry in Wikipedia, as it is critically received by the Wikipedians and tested on the ground of the three Wikipedia principles. What kind of strategies can be deployed in Wikipedia to increase the chance of having your controversial/ dodgy article published?

I wrote an article about ‘daggering’: A Jamaican dance that has recently gained popularity due to highly controversial Youtube videos in which can be observed how this provocative (some might say violent) dance is perfomed. The Jamaican Broadcast Commitee has set a ban on ‘daggering’ and everything that is related to it. In my article I use sexually explicit terms, while still trying to maintain a neutral point of view in my style of writing. I also used different accounts, added a great number of sources, headers (including history and politics, to make it look as if it has relevance). Let’s see how that will turn out.

Keeping you posted.

P.S. Including the tag {{new page}} will attend spectators of your article to “not rush and mark it for deletion, but check back in a while and/or contact the creator to ascertain his/her plans”. Morover it will also make your page less visible on google search untill you decide that the article is worth it.

P.P.S. I removed the new page-tag. The article has been included as part of WikiProject Dance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dance and Dance-related topics on Wikipedia as well as WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. However it has received ‘stub-class’ for its quality and a ‘low’ in relevance. The provocative image that I’ve included has been removed as well. While other Wikipedians are highly critical of the article’s relevance, the ‘base’ of the article is left untouched and remains on Wikipedia.

3 Responses to “Daggering Wikipedia: How to increase the chance of having your Wikipedia article published?”
  • October 27, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    While going through my usual morning ritual of reading the morning newspaper. My eyes absently scanned the word ‘Daggering’. I didn’t quite realise yet that De Volkskrant (which I usually don’t associate with terms like ‘droogneuken’) published this subject on their frontpage.
    Which reminded me of your entry for Wikipedia, so I thought you might find this information entertaining (like I did) :)
    In case you are curious: it is the edition of the 26th.

  • October 27, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    I’m curious what the “droogneuken” article was about.. is “dry-humping” (albeit much different than “daggering,” not having the overtly aggressive or acrobatically-demanding dance-hall aspects of the latter) a front-page-worthy phenomenon here currently?

  • October 27, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    Laila, thanks for your comment! I immediately searched for the article, but only found this one which I couldn’t zoom into sufficiently to actually read it. Is there a chance that you could bring the physical article to class? By the way: reading the parts that I could read of the article, I very much suspect they have used my definition of daggering on wikipedia :)

    To alternateash: I found this article as a respond to the article in the Volkskrant written by Van Dale dictionary (a respected dictionary in Holland). They proclaimed the word ‘daggeren’ to ‘word of the day’ yesterday! Huray! It’s also stated in the article that it is NOT a form of ‘droog neuken’ as ‘droog neuken’ merely means sliding or scrubbing your body to someone else in a sexual manner, while daggering is perceived to be making sexual movements. So here you go.

    In my opinion daggering is definitively worth a front page. Sex, violence and exotic cultures are always a hot topic. Now, I begin te wonder ‘How open is the MoM-blog to comments of daggering’?

Leave a Reply