http://wikipediocracy.com/2018/08/08/wi ... imes-mean/
Wikipedia’s treatment of academics: shallow, distorted and sometimes mean
by Kingsindian
A bit of an odd read, examining the case of Jacob Barnett. Readers might struggle to reconcile this statement.....
....with the actual contents, which don't really do that. That promised too much, from what is essentially the write-up of the ebb and flow of the deletion debates, as they flip flopped in the usual way these cases do where there's no good answer to the question, why is this person being written about? Therefore, why should Wikipedia care they're being written about, and how should they write it up if they do.This blog post will look at the story, which sheds some light on how Wikipedia functions (or not) in matters of science, academics and biographies of living people
He wrongly asserts that a real encyclopedia would be interested in his academic achievements, or that this case is relevant to Wikipedia because of it's role in teaching/science. He wrongly asserts this was a situation where expert input would have helped. It would not. You do not need expertise to answer the questions he posed, namely what is his significance to his field. It is merely difficult.
He's completely missed the real failing of Wikipedia here. There should ultimately be no difficulty for Wikipedia in writing about child prodigies. And yet they did indeed have great difficulty here, ultimately choosing the option they often do in difficult cases, to pretend it is impossible, as a way to hide the embarrassing truth, that they just can't do it.
There are so few child prodigies, even in a volunteer project, people should be falling over themselves to do the difficult work of assessing their importance, while the rest can do the easy work of writing about them on human interest level. He wrongly asserts it is an either/or situation, when this is a false dichotomy borne of Wikipedia's own internal dysfunction and competing editing philosophies.
Still, it was something to read that sort of points readers into an area where Wikipedia does badly. So.....C minus? Too generous, methinks.
Disappointing that these blog posts don't give us a window into the contemporary comments of the members of Wikipediocracy on the subject. Understandable though, as it would show quite well that they are just as incapable as the Wikpediots in dealing with such hard cases in a way that fulfils the promise of Wikipedia of being an encyclopedia for the modern age. Because they are, by and large, Wikipediots, and as such, have nothing to say except the same crap you could find in the debates he has highlighted here.