WIKIPEDIA ENTRY

Recently I wanted to have an entry of mine in Wikipedia. I mean there must be my brief sketch on Wikipedia, for others to read about me and understand a little. I searched different options and content there showing how one can have an entry published on Wikipedia. They specified a lot regarding the terms and conditions of acceptance of short biographies to get an entry into Wikipedia. These terms are so vague that I failed to understand it well. I could not achieve it. My name is not appearing on Wikipedia. I felt disappointed about it.

One of the criteria they posted there for one’s biography to be published there is that the person should be a prominent one in an area, endorsed by considerable number of independent sources of content. It means there must be wide coverage about him or her in mainstream print, electronic and online media. Focus lights must be around them!

I wondered about these many criteria. I believe there are a set of editors and writers associated with Wikipedia projects of various kinds. They write on those topics which they like or find suitable based on their criteria. Others cannot get an entry written and published there that easily without their intervention.

There are thousands of articles on a multitude of topics on Wikipedia, educating millions of Internet users across the world. The content posted on Wikipedia and their noble projects of various kinds are outstanding. They created a strong and sustainable online platform to bring content generators and users together and thus disseminate knowledge and information of immense value to all freely and ideally. It is a classic endeavor.

There are crawlers on Google which partly contribute in identifying related content and keeping it available to searchers within seconds. Keywords and some other aspects of search engine optimization play a key role in bringing a website or portal great or poor online status in the short or long run. I don’t think the folks of Wikipedia have such specific and reliable agents, who can identify deserving ones impartially, write about them factually and publish that content on Wikipedia for all to read.

My questions to those representing Wikipedia:

1. There are hundreds of great people in every part of the world about whom Wikipedia readers should also know. These folks don’t try for publicity on any kind of media. They do wonders silently without craving recognition and appreciation for their noble efforts. You cannot find any printed word about them in print media or otherwise. There is no certainty that print media is genuine and reliable. Many publishing houses of dailies, weeklies and monthlies write about somebody or something if they are paid behind the door secretly for it. On the other hand, almost all the heads of print and electronic media units are inclined and loyal towards one political party, cult, philosophy, orientation or the other. They publish articles positively about those only, whom they find as their ones from political, regional or other narrow perspective. How can we trust that what a daily or weekly has written is genuine, praiseworthy and reliable?

2. We cannot assess the value of a person, place, book, monument, feature film, documentary, art or event based on the publicity it could generate in a time period in an age. For example: Now many youth in Andhra Pradesh are interested in listening to modern film songs and reading books of ordinary nature. Their knowledge of their native literature is very low. They don’t like listening to a classic old Telugu film song or watching it because it is not fashionable/crazy for them. If we keep a copy of Bhagavad Gita and a comic book before them, they may choose comic book only to read for a little while and throw away. Does it mean that Bhagavad Gita is of no value in comparison to that comic book? Many journalists, columnists and superficial critics may write a lot about that comic book in their dailies or other periodicals. Do you take that as authentic information and publish on Wikipedia?

3. The concept of celebrity status is also vague. We can find much content on Wikipedia about a variety of celebrities related to various disciplines and places in this world. How did they become celebrities? What was/is their actual contribution to the society or nation at large? If many talk about one or admire one madly across places, would he/she become a celebrity? If Wikipedia publishes articles on such figures only, how can I believe that it has standards and values of ultimate order? The primary question regarding celebrities is ‘what is their tangible and measurable contribution to humanity at large?’ I read articles about many celebrities, books and films, which I think are of very negligible value.

4. Awards and rewards cannot be a testimony to assess the value of an achiever or event. In India, I can get a Bharat Ratna if I belong to the ruling party and if I am an old man of considerable nature. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Sachin Tendulkar are the best examples for this phenomenon. Their direct positive impact on the citizens of India is very low. To be frank, Atal was a politician and Sachin was a player. They enjoyed their lives, as a politician or a player. They did not make great contribution to positive social change or for the noble image of India. On the other hand, there are prostitutes who are offering great service to humanity. They are satisfying the basic instincts of their customers, offering them such noble service, which their clients cannot get elsewhere that safely and securely. How do the writers and editors associated with Wikipedia find details about these noble personalities of India and write about them? If I have 10 luxury cars, I become a celebrity. If I lose them soon, I cease to become a celebrity. My material possessions should not make me into a celebrity but my intellectual approach and actual contribution to the depressed, helpless and deserving ones in a place. How do the folks of Wikipedia identify me if I do such service very selflessly and ideally? Do they expect me to send an application to them to write about me on their pages? Then, promoting a person on his/her request does not make it a worthwhile effort either.

5. Alfred Nobel invented dynamite for a great purpose. Later he realized that others were misusing that invention for quite destructive acts. To compensate the loss and negative impact his invention made on humanity, he instituted Nobel Prize in some categories. Many have received Nobel Prize during the last few years for their contribution to different fields of discovery, creativity and human service. It does not mean that they are only the great folks of a nation. For the writers and editors of Wikipedia, only Alfred Nobel might look like an achiever but not others. A lot of money, craze and waiting are associated with Nobel Prize every year. So, they write about these folks and events. In a village, an old man might have offered extraordinary services to all helpless ones. He belongs to a remote area. He is not good at lobbying. He does not know how to promote himself. Can the team of Wikipedia find out such genuine achievers and write about them honestly? What are their capabilities in assessing what is good or bad?

I wrote two pages of content about myself thinking that it would be published on Wikipedia. Nobody asked me about it. When I tried to do it on my own, their system did not accept it. Do I deserve an entry on Wikipedia or not? If yes, who should assess my actual worth in this regard before publishing it and based on what criteria? If no, can the editors and writers of Wikipedia state that all the entries of biographies posted on Wikipedia are of ultimate value and mine does not suit those criteria?

Independent sources are not special creations of God but of shallow human beings, who might have negative traits like nepotism, selfishness and snobbery. How can the folks of Wikipedia consider the writings of media persons as reliable and appreciable content? If freedom and broad-based dissemination of knowledge is the primary objective of Wikipedia, why have they neglected my submitted entry?  I object to their norms and policies, which are extensively outlined and explained in various pages on Wikipedia.