A little while ago, a former colleague pointed me at the Wikipedia page for Lorcan Dempsey. I had several reactions, one of which was to want to edit the page. It is mostly based on the limited amount of information in my public OCLC bio and on the web more widely. I have not edited it, as it did not seem quite appropriate. I could ask somebody else to make changes but that did not seem quite right either 😉
I am interested to see that the entry currently has a robotically generated note saying that it is uncategorized. I could categorize it, I suppose, supply a birth date, and so on. Again, I have not.
Maybe I should just go ahead ….

9 thoughts on “Wikipedia”

  1. I believe it is considered somewhat declasse to edit one’s own Wikipedia page. This has, of course, led to some rather odd episodes in which material taken from (e.g.) news media for a person’s page was simply wrong, and the person in question was not allowed to correct it!

  2. I think Dorothea may be right, and I think that’s stupid. If you’re knowledgeable about any other topic, you’re supposed to correct errors in the Wikipedia article and flesh it out–and if you tell Wikipedians that there’s a problem, the response is always “Go fix it. It’s Wikipedia.”
    I assume you’re knowledgeable about your birth date, the actual name of your blog, and other factual items; so why is it inappropriate for you to provide that info on your Wikipedia entry?
    I agree that it’s inappropriate to write your own bio entry from scratch, but this is or should be different. (Yes, I know, my argument is with Wikipedia, not you. And I certainly don’t see anything wrong with feeding proposed changes to one of your Wikipedia-editing colleagues…)

  3. Why not check with Jkirriemuir, the contributor who wrote and updated the entry (listed under the history tab)?

  4. My library subscribes to Gale Biography Resource Center. Each entry has a link at the bottom for updating which states “listee only.” Surely Wikipedia does not hold itself to more stringent standards than Gale. I believe it is your duty to correct it!

  5. Oh, go ahead and update the entry already!
    Good information from a reputable source is better than poor information from someone named “Jkirriemuir.”

  6. Oy! Kurt! Begone to your Playstation and N64 with you.
    I did the original article, but ran out of stuff quite quickly. I don’t know when Lorcan’s birthday, or much else about Lorcan (which is odd, as he was my line manager for 2 years).
    I think it’s okay to edit an entry about yourself, certainly if it’s incontestible information e.g. birthdate.
    I would do more, but … it is wikipedia which is a social thing … maybe someone in OCLC records, or back in UKOLN, could have a go. Or Lorcan or immediate family.

  7. The only thing “poor”, Kurt, is your own lack of contribution and social networking awareness. At least “Jkirriemuir” started off the Wikipedia entry and edited it. Judging from a quick look around the web, he/she has done a reasonably accurate job on this entry. But it is up to other people to add more content, edit and refine. That includes me, that includes you.

    If you think it is “poor”, then it is up to you to edit out the “poor” information and refine, which would be a better contribution to social information than immature comments. I notice there is no contribution from “Kurt” on the history list for the Wikipedia page…

    Regarding the other comments, totally agree with Walt. You can’t get much more of a primary source on, for example, the birth year, than the person the Wikipedia page describes!

  8. Just edit it.
    Noted there are more contributers to this debate (9, including myself) than there are contributers to the Wikipedia article (4 – and one of those is a robot!).
    Seems like there’s a lot of talk, but little action. I agree with Andrea and Walt.

  9. Yes, agree with Andrea and Walt too. Content is king; just edit it.

    Kudos to, Timrollpickering and Jkirriemuir for being proactive and getting the article up there.

Comments are closed.