Little did I know that it’s a veritable minefield of rules and regulations, which will probably ensure an end to The Jackal article on Wikipedia.
Now don’t get me wrong, I totally agree that there needs to be rules in place so that Wikipedia continues to be balanced and a factual documentation of the world and it’s people. In fact I love it, especially it’s impartiality and practicality. But I often wonder how much worthwhile content is excluded because of an over-application of the rules due to political motivation.
My initial impetus for spending the time creating content for Wikipedia was to ensure that the correct referenced and peer-reviewed information is available to the public. This limits any misconceptions and encourages informed debate. However I have now had to defend my articles, which has been time consuming, and ultimately discouraged me from participating further.
The particular rule that was leveled against The Jackal (blogsite) article is that it is insignificant, which is of course a matter of opinion. Personally I think it is notable, but like most people, I have a vested interest in my writing not being irrelevant. It’s a conundrum that has caused Wikipedia to develop a vast array of rules, some of which contradict each other.
However it’s the application of the rules that really matters.
Update: The A7 speedy deletion tag was declined. You can check out developments and the discussion of the The Jackal (blogsite) article deletion here.
