I went on the talk page and expressed my concern that I don't think that pageant winners would qualify for wikipedia status. Or do they?
The creator of this page is a user named pageantupdater whose purpose is to:
" ...add to the collection of pages relating to the Miss USA and Miss Teen USA national and state pageants - and the titleholders.Under the five pillars of wikipedia, I do not think this fits the purpose of wikipedia. In their first pillar, they state:
If you know anything about a past or present Miss USA delegate please create an article for them! The quickest way to the links is to go to the state pageant page (Category:Miss USA state pageants) and click on their name from there."
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory. Nor is Wikipedia a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents; these kinds of content should be contributed to the sister projects, Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource, respectively."After reading what Wikipedia says about handling trivia, I conclude that their suggestions are somewhat unrealistic as this person has made it her mission to create information about all of the pageant participants (and offering awards to those who join her in her purpose.)
Perhaps there should be wikipedia articles on all of the edublog award winners or presenters at NECC, surely they are more worthwhile than a pageant winners (I have won pageants too, you know, perhaps my reign is more noteworthy than my work in education!?!)
I like Wikipedia and will use their methods to promote its effectual use, however, when there are users dedicated to the propogation of trivia in Wikipedia, I think its editors should step in. They have created several other places for such news including: Wiktionary, Wikinews, and Wikisource.
Under edublogs in Wikipedia, I found the following notable edubloggers, each who has their own stub:
- Stephen Downes
- Michael Feldstein
- Josie Fraser (nothing has been added)
- Will Richardson (nothing has been added)
I guess the one thing that has struck me -- here we are creating incredible resources and wikis of our own and yet ignoring the most popular wiki with the widest reach available, Wikipedia.
I talked to an orthopaedic surgeon the other day who says he consults wikipedia on an ongoing basis as his first stop. He commented that several errors and omissions really bothered him. I then told him that I believe if he is going to use Wikipedia, that if he is qualified (as he is) he has a professional responsibility to edit wikipedia. What do you think?
I challenge each of you to join in and work to improve wikipedia -- AND DON'T go starting a contest of notable edubloggers -- don't add your own name to the list. I would actually stay away from that.
Just remember, this is the picture of edublogs that is shown to the world. Are you happy with it? Does it need more information?
Hmmm. The bunny trails that we get on random searches!