I am about to embark on a story concerning wikis, and will leave it at that, so as not to undermine the article. But I must share one story, or maybe two. Recently, a friend with extreme as they say "notability" found that someone created a Wikipedia page about him. He was, to be honest, a little freaked out. So he began to follow the page's development. Since it was posted, a slew of people have begun discussing his work and so-called "notability." Because apparently one must be an A-list Hollywood celebrity (as opposed to my friend, who is simply, as they say, B-list) before people begin to attack your right to be on the site. Now, further research indicates that the person lobbying for him to be removed is an electric-company telemarketer with about as much curiosity about the world, say, as our president. Tell me: What is the point of an online encyclopedia if the people who call you at dinnertime to ask if you'd like to switch long-distance carriers get to decide who is "notable" and who is not?
UPDATE: Since all things happen in parallel to me, I can now share a very ridiculous story related to the above tale. After my friend the actor found his page on Wikipedia (it has since been deleted, and I am not interested in adding to the fray), an editor I had told about my upcoming piece (just someone who had introduced himself to me at an event, not an employer), e-mailed me to tell me that he had created a Wikipedia page about me. I told him it probably wouldn't be a good idea, since Wikipedians don't seem to like those who write about people, places, or things, without being the subjects of other writers' works as well, but he went ahead, and I watched--or lurked, as it is said--every now and again at the page's development. Mostly in disgust. You see, I may have my own blog and like to occasionally see my name in print or on screen in relation to some text I can be proud of, but I'm one of those small-ego types. I long to be the behind the scenes guy. The idea guy who doesn't have to deal with attention, god forbid I should ever think something up that deserves it. I didn't continue the concert violinist path because of my wrist problems as well as because of the fact that I just didn't care enough about my ego to perform for people. I was always more happy playing in private. Or really, most happy playing for friends and family. Writing, to me, is a little different. Sure, it's putting yourself out in the public eye, but let's face it, how many people, other than journalists, look at bylines on most stories? Only recently--and by recent I mean the past 20 years--are we now considering journalists and writers with the same celebrity potential as we do actors. Point is, I went into writing because I like to write, research, tell stories, get inside people's heads, channel their voices, keep learning, etc. I did not get into it to become notable or perform. But like anyone, I always think it's nice to be recognized with some positive feedback.
Imagine, if you will, though, what it would feel like to read a heated dialogue between strangers about your so-called "notability." This is what I had to deal with over the past few weeks as some Wikipedians came to my defense as a "notable" writer--despite the fact that no one has, to date, written a biography about my humble, young life--and some, including one in particular, decided to keep trying to get me deleted! After a while, reading some of this stuff, and in particular reading the article that had been written about me, I wanted to be deleted! But then I realized what was at stake here--an actual issue: Wikipedia doesn't have a clear policy about how to deal with writers who haven't yet been the subject of major biographies but also have achieved some notability in their field. Now, I'm no one to assert my notability, but I will simply assert, if pressed, that I work hard at what I do (whether it's art, entertainment, or simply an assignment I have taken to make money) and think I've written a few smart and/or funny things in my career, and for a number of very reputable publications and corporations. Whatever that means to the majority of Wikipedians, I don't know. But, if anything, the site's policies should be changed to take into the account that there are a lot of us: independent writers, photographers, designers, and artists who have made the world and the people and culture in it our subjects and achieved a certain level of stability in our careers, such that we work for some pretty notable people.
Here, to move the subject back to the "pedians" is what was written about yours truly on the debate page to keep or delete me! I'll sign out here, and leave you to the sharks. I, for one, am glad these comments have been removed, and that the debate is over--except that now, that bad bio-article about me needs to be "wikified" (as if I have any idea what that means), so I'm not sure the nonsense is over. But now to selected comments from the "wiki editors," as promised (you try to understand this, please!):
"Seems to be non notable. Was put up for speedy but speedy tag was removed since page asserts notability."
"Is notable author of cultural essays and opinion pieces promoting new policies and ideas concerning medical politics."
"Breaks important cultural news on his website www.glassshallot.com. Was the first print journalist to chronicle David Lynch's meditation cult presentation and Abraham Cherrix's fight with the Virginia government over the right to use alternative medicine over chemotherapy. I've been following Mr. Baer's work for years and he is one of a group of young cutting edge writers who is not afraid to shed some light on issues that provoke thought, such as patient advocacy, cultural criticisms, and insightful (and entertaining)essays. A prolific writer already, I look forward to Mr. Baer’s future pieces with enthusiasm. "
"This is a tough one to deal with under WP:BIO. I see that he's written in a lot of different publications, and on a number of different topics. But, I'm having problems with the guidelines, as it appears he's a freelancer, and thus sells to those publications (or perhaps is invited to write for them, depending on the process). Problem is, WP:BIO requests multiple, non-trivial sources that are ABOUT the person involved, which seem to be missing; it also asks for independent coverage of a published author's works, also not available that I could find. Journalists are tough to place, unfortunately, and freelancers even more. At what point does a freelance journalist become well-known? Having said that, the article needs work and actual links to references. Neutral, as the guidelines don't help and he's published enough for me to not be able to flat-out say delete. Closing admin: good luck."
"[T]he NYT itself is notable, but we can't simply give an article to everyone who gets published in the NYT. The authors themselves must be notable per WP:BIO to warrant an article here. And I do not believe Mr. Baer satisfies those requirements."
"Verifiable sources exist within the paid archives of newspapers like the NY and Los Angeles Times for Adam Baer. Some of his articles can be found on the Web site glassshallot.com. His work has also been written about in Arts and Letters Daily, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, and other publications of note."
" Re "A fight to say no to chemo," Opinion, July 29Adam Baer's commentary heart-wrenchingly captures the dilemma faced by so many folks with life-threatening diseases who are treated by very imperfect and harsh regimens. Many of these harsh treatments cure people and are backed up by peer-reviewed studies in recognized medical journals. Even so-called alternative treatments are receiving scrutiny through a special institute created for this purpose at the National Institutes of Health.Still, prisons in the United States house quacks who have hoodwinked people in their most desperate hours by promising cures using feel-good approaches. Unfortunately, the U.S. arm of the law cannot reach to other nations to cull out quacks who endanger the lives of our citizenry.STEVEN B. OPPENHEIMER
DirectorCenter for Cancer andDevelopmental Biology"
"The fact remains: the publications are notable, but simply publishing articles in them does not make Mr. Baer himself notable."
"[You want] Reviews of prominent reviewers? Ok, that happens all the time. Sounds as if you need to acquaint yourself with how people like this become prominent, and what their work means to the world. As for articles and references, they have been pointed out. You can take the time to cite them in your specific way if you'd like to improve this article. Wikipedia should rely on primary sources when it comes to people who work in this and other similar profession. Read the comments above from notable researchers and others. These are people who work in academia. They know what true notability means, and how to achieve it. If you're so confident that the policies you cite are powerful and bizarre enough to keep this subject from being written about here, you would stop contributing to this dialogue. If you were an expert in writing, journalism, or publishing, and you felt that the subject wasn't important, that would be another story. You are not, and that's why can state arcane and unimportant rules all you want, but in the end logic and expertise will win. If not here then somewhere that matters more."
"Frankly, we're still lacking outside references to the author himself outside of his publishing credits. Journalists, especially freelancers, as I said before are tough to sort out. [NAME REDACTED] is an editor, same as everyone else, and the community has the ability to contribute in these debates. It's really going to be up to the closing administrator to decide what happens on this one. (If it is kept, the article needs serious, major work to be acceptable encyclopedic standard.) "
"The policies must be read and interpreted with more, deeper insight. But I appreciate your thoughts. As for whether or not [WIKI USER NAME REDACTED] provided citations of a specific kind, that's way less important than the fact that these verifiable sources exist and can be found with contemporary search databases. "
"Trying to "read and interperet" the policies for "insight" is trying to game the system. The policies are what they are. Further, [WIKI USER NAME REDACTED] can claim they exist, but without properly cited references, it doesn't mean we can use them in any meaningful manner. The burden of proof is on those wanting to make claims in the article. If they can be found, please find them and cite them in the article. "
"I just stumbled upon this debate while and I wanted to contribute as the answer is clear to me.I believe that writers for highly regarded publications, who themselves become highly regarded from their journalistic work and published books should be considered notable. Since the wikipedia policy doesn't really address the definition of notable, why should we not give credit to the true work horses of information dissemination? Adam Baer had been appeared in virtually every publication I pick up, such as USA Today, LA times, NY Times, Arts & Letters Daily just to name a few. I believe his work is notable and important. [WIKI USER NAME REDACTED] appears to have one definition of notable while wikipedia has another--who's the real boss here? Is [WIKI USER NAME REDACTED] notable? Why does [WIKI USER NAME REDACTED] get to determine what entries get deleted and what remains? As a psychologist and researcher, it is simply bad science to reject information based on this one source. Leave the entry, Mr. Baer is notable. Case closed."
"Delete per WP:BIO. Does not estabilish notability, no verifiable sources given"
"Keep per WP:BIO. Does establish notability, plenty of verifiable sources given, from Los Angeles Times and USA Today to Arts and Letters Daily and other major American newspapers and magazines."
The result, as I understand it, is that my Wikipedia page, such as it is, will remain due to a lack of consensus on the issue of my so-called "notability." This was no stunt--it actually happened as I had begun preparing to interview lots of people around the world about how they use wikis and wikipedia. Simultaneity is very hard for me to escape, it seems. In the meantime, I am open to wikipedian interviewers if more information about me is desired. I'm honored when anyone writes anything about me. As a writer who has done his share of criticism, I truly believe in the old adage: all press is good press. So keep it comin'! So much for playing in private...
UPDATE: A reader writes to tell me that some crazy person has updated my Wikipedia article to call me "failed" and a "douchebag" among other nice things--on an encyclopedia web site. I think this nonsense has gone on long enough. Never interested in being on the site to begin with--never involved at all with the article's germination or its progress--I have joined Wikipedia as a member and erased all the content on my page. Please, whoever you are that like to partake in writing or changing this article, leave it as it is. I think many people should be considered notable, freelance journalist or firefighter, but I don't think I should be on a shotty encyclopedia web site that I personally use as research to find evidences of incorrect 9/11 conspiracy theories, say. What a delicious ending. Thankfully, I still have time to discuss the whole damn thing with the founder of Wikipedia, and it will hopefully make it into the article. SO I must thank all the crazy wikipedians--those that think this writer both deserved to be on the site and those that think I'm a douchebag. Thank you for giving my story a great conclusion!
