I feel compelled to share with you (again) my
feelings about Wikipedia. This time my take on the big Wiki is a little more wideranging. Now it's about Wikipedia, the
Beatles, editing, and your book. My inspiration is an article The Wall Street Journal. On Oct. 16, it ran
a full-page feature story on the—in my opinion—idiocy-factor of Wikipedia.
But let me back up. In the first edition of The Frugal Book Promoter I suggested that
authors might install themselves on Wikipedia. Sometimes we need a dose of good
marketing fun. Imagine feeling as if our author selves had made it sufficiently
to be listed in an encyclopedia! I also thought it might give our self images a
boost. And, of course, our credibility. I listed myself right after my first
novel was published and it was a ball. I have a journalism background, so I was
very careful to use strict journalistic ethical standards, avoid adjectives and
adverbs, etc. To make a long story short, it didn't work out so well. You can
read the sordid details in the second edition of The Frugal Book Promoter (http://budurl.com/FrugalBkPromo)
where I revised my recommendation.
These days I suggest that writers only attempt using
Wikipedia as part of their branding campaign if they have a bona fide publisher
(by Wikipedia standards and it's anyone's guess what those standards might be!)
who will do it for them and if they
are not sensitive writerly types. In other words, you might enjoy it more if
you have a really thick skin.
Then along comes The
Journal article that tells about the very long running disagreement between
Wikipedia "editors" on whether or not The Beatles should be "the
Beatles" or "The Beatles." They have apparently been disputing
this monumental punctuation and marketing choice issue, a debate "playing
out behind the scenes" where apparently most of their debates are carried
out which says something about their editorial transparency.
The Journal notes that Wikipedia
has some 85,000 active editors "defined as those who record at least five
edits per month." And they talk (and argue!) using a little edit link at
the top of each page. According to The
Journal, one editor claims it is getting worse because of "an overabundance
of testosterone running around the pages." (About 90% of Wikipedia's
editors are male and a huge percentage—more than half—of those editors say they've
been in an argument with other editors in the last few months. And the arguments were on monumental
issues like whether or not an image of cow tipping portrays this activity of
rural youth appropriately. And, of course, on the Beatles issue.
I'm open to the idea that disagreement may in the
long run lead to the accuracy of entries. In fact, that's the whole idea behind
Wikipedia—that the truth (and full story) of any issue will eventually filter
to the top and the dregs will filter away.
But that testosterone thing? Let's—to avoid argument
over terms—call it authoritarianism or cases of terminal self-righteousness. It
keeps those very things from happening, to say nothing of wasting time that
would be unacceptable if the market place if those "editors" were
being paid a salary or by the hour. Of if they had been selected on the basis
of expertise rather than frequency.
What the Beatles issue boils down to is a style
choice. (To learn more about style choices you may want to refer to my blog on
editing at http://thefrugaleditor.blogspot.com
or to The Frugal Editor at http://budurl.com/thefrugaleditor or Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies by June Casagrande at http://budurl/grammarsnobs).
And to branding.
If The Beatles wanted to use a capital "T"
as they did on Ringo's drum and other advertising, then that branding should be
honored when their name is used. That is their
name. We all get to choose the names of our businesses, books, or bands and we
get to choose how to capitalize them. The
New York Times uses the "The" as part of their name and it's
capped to indicate that. So does The Wall
Street Journal. But that's rare. Most newspapers don't.
Perhaps Wikipedia needs firmer guidelines for their
"editors." Perhaps those guidelines should include choosing a
reliable style choice manual like Chicago
Manual of Style (http://budurl.com/ChicMan) for their editors to follow.
Perhaps Wikipedia should have some guidelines for
who they accept as editors apart from how often they contribute. Or separate
out those who line edit from those who contribute content. And maybe requiring
some editing experience would be a good idea. I mean, it wouldn't hurt this
site to pay some writers or editors for their expertise.
These guys, maybe including the 10% of them who are
women, need some reigning in when they hold power over which authors are
acceptable to be included in their online encyclopedia—or which editors get to
hold sway over the Beatles' brand. Of course, because of the disagreement,
Wikipedia could just ban The Beatles from their book! They've been known to do
that to authors.
Note: Sometimes you see "The
Beatles" in this little rant. Sometimes you don't. That's because in my
personal style book, I cap the "The" when I'm referring to the actual
titles of the band and don't when I'm referring to something that belongs to
The Beatles like their brand. Sometimes the choice is hard to make. I don't
think it's worth getting into a frenzy over.
So now you know all about the relationship between
Wikipedia, The Beatles, Marketing, Branding, and Punctuation. You know why such
dilemmas might best be avoided altogether.
-----
Carolyn Howard-Johnson, author of This Is the Place; Harkening: A Collection of Stories Remembered; Tracings, a chapbook of poetry; and how to books for writers including the award-winning second edition of, The Frugal Book Promoter: How to get nearly free publicity on your own or by partnering with your publisher; The Frugal Editor: Put Your Best Book Forward to Avoid Humiliation and Ensure Success; and Great Little Last Minute Editing Tips for Writers . The Great First Impression Book Proposal is her newest booklet for writers. She has three FRUGAL books for retailers including A Retailer’s Guide to Frugal In-Store Promotions: How To Increase Profits and Spit in the Eyes of Economic Downturns with Thrifty Events and Sales Techniques. Some of her other blogs are TheNewBookReview.blogspot.com, a blog where authors can recycle their favorite reviews. She also blogs at all things editing, grammar, formatting and more at The Frugal, Smart and Tuned-In Editor . If your followers at Twitter would benefit from this blog post, please use the little Green widget to let them know about this blog:
Wiki information is always so iffy, and that many editors explains why.
ReplyDeleteI always understood that you couldn't add yourself, someone else had to do it. How do you get around that?
Diane, this was back in 2001. It was easy then, though I understand there is still a way to do that. Anyone else know a way to do it, let us know. (-:
ReplyDelete