Right. So, for the second time in a month, the "Tara Hunt" entry on Wikipedia has been marked for deletion. My notable sources not notable enough. The accusations of Dan Fost's bias are enough to make me giggle. I do think he is a fan of BarCamp, but me? Not in the way the Wikipedian implies.
Either way...did I think I deserved to be up there in the first place? I don't know. I remember when John told me he entered it...I was delighted. I was even more delighted when it remained up for quite sometime. However, a part of me wondered all along whether I quite meet the threshold for an entry.
The whole 'famous for 15 people' thing is making Wikipedia an interesting place to watch. In the previous call for deletion, there were Wikipedians who said I was notable, citing references from other notables on Wikipedia, Pinko Marketing (and references to that), Google search results for "Tara Hunt" + marketing, etc. Others said no way, that my article read like a resume (I didn't write it).
There are oodles of entries on Wikipedia like this, though. Debatable 'notables', some who obviously do use their pages as their resumé, many people who have, obviously, accomplished a lot in their lifetime, but who are not widely known for these accomplishments and missing any 'notable third party sources'. Others I searched for are nowhere to be found, who are well-known authors, presenters, inventors and real thought leaders. But they haven't been quoted or featured by some national publication to be verified as mattering to history. And all judgements on "delete" or "keep" are still made by a handful of individuals.
Is Wikipedia the people's encyclopedia? Well, no. Not really. I mean, it gets closer than the Encyclopedia Britannica, but it uses similar editorial guidelines. It's advantage is that there are more sources (people) to add entries so that it can grow and encompass knowledge faster than the small, paid editorial team at EB. But I don't think it was meant to be the people's encyclopedia and this is where our tempers run high.
I could think, "I'm being deleted? What do these jerks know about my accomplishments?" and be personally offended and upset by this. But Wikipedia is no measure of my worth. It's an encyclopedia that is editable and online. Period.
Should there be an encyclopedia of people? Well, there is already. It includes the internet, but extends into phonebooks, government records and personal anecdotes. Maybe we can't all be written into history like we want to be, but know that this is a century's old issue: History is not 'a fact', it is a point of view. History has been written by a small percentage of the population over time and, because of 'scaling problems', will probably continue in the same fashion.
What we CAN hope for, though, is the growing understanding of that bias and the ability for our actions that we take TODAY to resonate far into the future: with or without credit, they are important.