Go Gator! Why Are The Wiki Mandarins So Insistent On Excluding The Curch Meyers Speech?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Mods, move to GD if you prefer, thks.

You may or may not be familiar with this video – it’s pretty amazing and funny.

This is almost certainly the most notable/attention-getting things she’s ever said or done, or will. But you wouldn’t know that from the official Wiki biography.

Not for want of trying, the history/background pages reflect – it’s been posted a bunch of times. And taken down, on grounds that, frankly, strike me as bogus. As I read it, the takedown rationales were:

(1) “original research/not verified” – give me a break – it’s from C-SPAN and no one’s ever seriously challenged its legitimacy. At most, this rationale would apply to some of the accompanying commentary, but even then, comments along the lines of “it subjected Brown to ridicule” aren’t really research, they’re clearly reflected in the many YouTube and other comments.

(2) “just because something is cited or viewed a lot of times doesn’t make it important” – really? Then why does rickrolling, an ephemeral meme that has no significance or cultural impact beyond its own viral propagation, merit an entry with no comment?

(3) “not notable or important enough to be in an encyclopedia entry” – well, the vast number of people in America who are today aware of the existence of Corinne Brown are aware of her because of this video. And, the (ridiculously minor by comparison) verbal flubs of Quayle and GWB were deemed sufficiently significant to their legacies that they are included in their Wiki profiles, as are Biden’s “gaffes.” Is there a serious contention that a speech that shows so tangential a grasp of facts, judgment, and the English language isn’t relevant to important issues like the quality of our government or the ability of Congressmen to address more serious issues? The woman’s borderline illiterate, has a graduate degree, and is a member of Congress, and none of those three facts is “relevant” to ongoing debates over the quality of our representation and educational system, gerrymandering (she got elected to one of those bug-splat districts, I think), and affirmative action?

Look, I fully understand that many who find this video a howler are posting it in a mean spirited, partisan, unkind vein, but that doesn’t make it non-relevant, any more than Swift’s very mean spirited satires rendered the social issues on which he vented his ire unimportant.

Not that the abysmal and random quality of other Wiki entries justifies lowering standards for Brown, but I find none of the arguments for excluding this video the least bit persuasive and ISTM the real motives for spiking it have to be either partisanship or paternalistic white liberal white knighting for a dumb goofy lady who of her own free will put on a minstrel show from whose fallout she shouldn’t be shielded.

2

Wow. That woman was elected to Congress?

3

Eh, sort of.

4

Without watching the speech, and just answering the question: That’s just the way it is. I tried correcting a celebrity’s birthdate and got smacked upside the head (and had my change reverted), even though I had official documentation on my side. And, yeah, I’m bitter about it.

5

First off, Wikipedia rules only get enforced when the people who think they own the article don’t like what you did. It’s called wikilawyering, although that’s also against the rules

The problem is that a primary source such as the CSPAN clip are not allowed to be used as references by themselves. You can use it to verify that it happened (and thus meet WP:V), but not that it is important enough to include (WP:N). That takes a secondary source–either just a highly respected one that says it is important, or several less respected ones. In particular, you need to pass WP:EVENT

If, after that, you think it is good enough want to get it in, the best bet is to find a mainstream source that mentions the C-SPAN thing. Bonus if it talks about how important it was. Say something like “I’m assuming that you are not wikilawyering in order to assert your ownership of this article, preventing it from remaining NPOV by omission of something that is obviously considered important. So, here’s a secondary source saying that this is both notable and verifiable.” (Make sure and include the links. In wikicode, the first one would look like “[[WP:AGF|assuming]]”, and the external link would look like [URL here]'s.) That way you come across as knowing the policies, so you can’t get railroaded.

6

Wow. No wonder Wikipedia is losing so many contributors.