www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

Re: <nettime> shocklogs wikipedia entry
Geert Lovink on Thu, 8 Feb 2007 05:49:15 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> shocklogs wikipedia entry


Thanks, Pit.

Here an update. A while the entry deleted (again).

What is kind of amazing is the Anglo-Saxon language policing, which  
term is and is not 'proper' English. An (English) wikipedia entry  
cannot be valid if it based on 'foreign language' sources.... now about  
that? Wikipedia is not a dictionary and in fact there are many  
Englishes so it makes you wonder why in particular 'neologisms' are  
targetted. and not names of (famous) persons, as Pit Schulz mentioned.

Below I have copy-pasted some of entries of the delete discussion.

The following contribution asks the key question: "This article is well  
resourced and only being targeted because of US-centric editing. As a  
regular reader of Wikipedia (yes, I know, our opinions are not as  
important as those of OCD-disorder-driven editors) I am interested in  
terms which may not be used in the US but are used elsewhere. In this  
case, it only takes a bit of Google research (search "shocklog blog")  
to see this term has a meaning and is in use. Is Wikipedia an American  
or global project?"

Some others:

   * Merge with Blog, as a "Shocklog" is a type of blog. Flakeloaf  
04:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

   * Delete Lacks sources demonstration sufficient use to satisfy  
WP:NEO. Sources consist of a couple of foreign-language blogs and an  
on-line Master's thesis. Need published sources complying with WP:RS  
--Shirahadasha 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    * Delete, basically a neologism, and an imprecise one at that. Is  
Stile Project a "shocklog"? Lankiveil 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

* Very Strong Delete One of the "sources" cited puts the nail in the  
coffin on this one!

    From "Masters of Media:"[1] "To our surprise the term shocklog, a  
wellknown term in the Netherlands, was nowhere to be found on the rest  
of the World Wide Web. We wanted that to change, so we -The Masters of  
Media- coined the term on a new English Wikipedia entry."

    So, they invented it and posted it on Wikipedia in order to coin a  
new term.zadignose 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    * Can it be speedied? If not, DELETE per Zadignose. -Penwhale |  
Blast the Penwhale 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    * Delete WP:NEO--Dacium 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  * Not Delete The entry is based on two published sources; two MA  
thesis' which were published by the University of Amsterdam. Just to  
clear up the confusion with regards to the Masters of Media blog post,  
they -MofM- did NOT make up this term, they only created an entry in  
Wikipedia about it! "With 'coining a term to the world" they mean  
introducing published material via wikipedia to a larger public. The MA  
thesis' and the videofiles date earlier than the MofM post (and  
wiki-entry) does. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by  
83.160.180.211 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

      * Then it's a WP:COI issue. Note that OA of article only  
contributed to 2 articles (the other being Roy Ascott), and Annemamedia  
(talk ? contribs) has no other edits apart from this article. -Penwhale  
| Blast the Penwhale 11:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

     * I see nothing on the link you cited to indicate it is a conflict  
of interest. Please recheck your link and see  
WP:No_original_research#Citing_oneself. How many articles the OA has  
edited seem irrelevant. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by  
150.182.148.34 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

    * Delete: still a neologism in English, and acknowledged by the  
authors to be "nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web".  
-- The Anome 11:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    * Delete, and do not merge anywhere. Blatantly invented word.  
Flyingtoaster1337 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    * Not Delete This article is well resourced and only being targeted  
because of US-centric editing. As a regular reader of Wikipedia (yes, I  
know, our opinions are not as important as those of OCD-disorder-driven  
editors) I am interested in terms which may not be used in the US but  
are used elsewhere. In this case, it only takes a bit of Google  
research (search "shocklog blog") to see this term has a meaning and is  
in use. Is Wikipedia an American or global project? ?The preceding  
unsigned comment was added by 150.182.149.137 (talk) 19:33, 22 January  
2007 (UTC).

        * Not Delete Wholehearted agreement. I, too, am a regular reader  
and believe that neologisms such as these are essential parts of the  
Wikipedia. ?The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordFoom (talk  
? contribs) 07:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

    * Delete ? the Anome (talk ? contribs) put it well: a term "nowhere  
to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web" is not a fit subject for  
a Wikipedia article &#10149;the Epopt 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    * Delete From en wikipedia until notable in en WP:RS sources,  
regardless of where en is spoken. Ronabop 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

    * Strong Merge to Shock site. A blog is by definition a website, it  
is intended to shock, and so it is a shock site. That it takes the form  
of a blog is of no real concern - it differs in no material way besides  
small changes in format. --Gwern (contribs) 19:23 24 January 2007 (GMT)

  * keep this is a good objective article meeting WP:WEB. But these are  
a special type of blog, and they are special enough, albeit in a  
negative way, to be appropriate for an article. The analogy is Shock  
site, which goes into considerably more detail than is thought  
appropriate on this article. The article served its purpose--I never  
knew about them until I read the WP article--and I would say the same  
here.

    The statement that "shocklog, a wellknown term in the Netherlands,  
was nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web. We wanted  
that to change, so we -The Masters of Media- coined the term on a new  
English Wikipedia entry." says the exact opposite of their having  
invented it. They took a term used in one country and began using it in  
another. They did not coin the word. If it were in wide use in the  
Netherlands but not here, it would still deserve an entry in the en  
WP.DGG 23:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

--

More on the shocklogs wikipedia entry case here:

http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/2007/02/06/wikipedia-battle-log- 
neologisms-minorities-and-us-centric-views/

And as an addition a video fragment on 'wikilobbying':

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml? 
ml_video=81454&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml 
_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2F%3Fml_video%3D81 
454&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reality&action=history

Bye, Geert

(thanks to students of the Masters of Media collective blog  
http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl)



On 2 Feb 2007, at 2:50 AM, Pit Schultz wrote:

> there are many examples like this. wikipedians are quite tolerant to people
> adding their own names if they play in a band etc. but  neologisms do not
> easily get in, especially if they are derivates of established  ones - mostly
> when they do not pass the "google test". if a notion is not established with
> maybe 20 to 30 sources, it tends to get deleted. once you got it  on
> boingboing it??s widely found. see bruce sterling??s "spime".
 <...>


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net