![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 20th, 2008 01:22 pmZOMG
1. SOMEONE WROTE A WIKIPEDIA ENTRY ON JANE WHITE
(1a. I edited it a fair amount -- I don't know if they hadn't finished or didn't know that much or what, but I added a goodish piece of what's currently there)
2. WIKIPEDIA WANTS TO DELETE IT DUE TO "LACK OF NOTABILITY"
I JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS WORLD AT ALL
Seriously, I don't get it! How is the daughter of a major if unjustly forgotten civil rights leader*, who herself later went on to star in a number of Broadway shows including the historic original Broadway cast of Once Upon a Mattress, and who *in* her acclaimed performance in that show made further history by becoming the first black actress to play a role cross-racially on Broadway, in whiteface -- and then won a bunch of Obie Awards, among others, for her performances in various Shakespeare plays -- and who only couldn't get more parts in the first place because she straddled the color line uncomfortably in a period in American history where being mixed-race was even more problematic than it is now -- how is that not notable?
Honestly, this really annoys me. What has Paris Hilton ever done in her life except be born to a rich guy who coddled her and gave her everything she wanted, and then wander around in a druggy stupor with a thousand long-range cameras jockeying to get a shot of her crotch to see if she's wearing underwear or not? With a fucking toy chihuahua poking out of her Fendi bag? No one is trying to delete the Paris Hilton article for lack of notability, despite the fact that she's, oh, NEVER DONE ANYTHING IN HER LIFE THAT ANYONE COULD REASONABLY GIVE DAMN ABOUT. And Wikipedia wants to delete the article on Jane White?
I mean I know no one's ever heard of her -- but how is anyone supposed to hear about her if whenever you try to do something to make people aware of her, such as WRITE A GODDAMN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, Wikipedia erases it!!! Because no one knows who she is!!! BECAUSE THEY ERASED THE ARTICLE!!!
Do I seriously have to, like, write a book about her myself before they will consider that there are enough "third-party, independent sources" of information about her that they will allow an article about her to stay up?!
Wikipedia is on a power trip! Why do they care if the article stays up anyway? Even if it doesn't meet their standards for "notability," why on earth would they delete it? It provides information about somebody who is linked in at least three other articles, all of which attempted to link her in the first place because they serenely *assumed* that she had her own article, and which thus were dappled with those stupid little red links that you get when someone tries to link to a nonexistent article! If she's linked in three other places, shouldn't that be enough to establish her goddamned relevance?
I am pissed!!
P.S. Yes, I am aware that apart from the footnote there is not a single sentence in this post that doesn't end in either a question mark or an exclamation point! No, I do not care! No, I am not overreacting!! FIGHT FOR JANE WHITE'S WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
*If the secretary of the NAACP for 35 years from its inception on isn't a major civil rights leader, bite me. He was a reasonably soft-spoken guy who didn't like Communists and didn't want to endanger the NAACP's tax-exempt status by condemning McCarthy; he was also a blond-haired, blue-eyed guy who was about 1/10 black, but 1/10 was more than enough for a guy who was born in the 1890s to be considered 100% lynching-eligible. As witness at least one attempt to lynch him. He was instrumental in a whole lot of the legal gruntwork that eventually got anti-lynching laws passed, and he worked closely with W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders from that period whose names *haven't* been forgotten, and he was a close friend of Langston Hughes and Paul Robeson and a bunch of other guys you remember from high school English, and I don't know who I'm ranting at.
1. SOMEONE WROTE A WIKIPEDIA ENTRY ON JANE WHITE
(1a. I edited it a fair amount -- I don't know if they hadn't finished or didn't know that much or what, but I added a goodish piece of what's currently there)
2. WIKIPEDIA WANTS TO DELETE IT DUE TO "LACK OF NOTABILITY"
I JUST DO NOT UNDERSTAND THIS WORLD AT ALL
Seriously, I don't get it! How is the daughter of a major if unjustly forgotten civil rights leader*, who herself later went on to star in a number of Broadway shows including the historic original Broadway cast of Once Upon a Mattress, and who *in* her acclaimed performance in that show made further history by becoming the first black actress to play a role cross-racially on Broadway, in whiteface -- and then won a bunch of Obie Awards, among others, for her performances in various Shakespeare plays -- and who only couldn't get more parts in the first place because she straddled the color line uncomfortably in a period in American history where being mixed-race was even more problematic than it is now -- how is that not notable?
Honestly, this really annoys me. What has Paris Hilton ever done in her life except be born to a rich guy who coddled her and gave her everything she wanted, and then wander around in a druggy stupor with a thousand long-range cameras jockeying to get a shot of her crotch to see if she's wearing underwear or not? With a fucking toy chihuahua poking out of her Fendi bag? No one is trying to delete the Paris Hilton article for lack of notability, despite the fact that she's, oh, NEVER DONE ANYTHING IN HER LIFE THAT ANYONE COULD REASONABLY GIVE DAMN ABOUT. And Wikipedia wants to delete the article on Jane White?
I mean I know no one's ever heard of her -- but how is anyone supposed to hear about her if whenever you try to do something to make people aware of her, such as WRITE A GODDAMN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, Wikipedia erases it!!! Because no one knows who she is!!! BECAUSE THEY ERASED THE ARTICLE!!!
Do I seriously have to, like, write a book about her myself before they will consider that there are enough "third-party, independent sources" of information about her that they will allow an article about her to stay up?!
Wikipedia is on a power trip! Why do they care if the article stays up anyway? Even if it doesn't meet their standards for "notability," why on earth would they delete it? It provides information about somebody who is linked in at least three other articles, all of which attempted to link her in the first place because they serenely *assumed* that she had her own article, and which thus were dappled with those stupid little red links that you get when someone tries to link to a nonexistent article! If she's linked in three other places, shouldn't that be enough to establish her goddamned relevance?
I am pissed!!
P.S. Yes, I am aware that apart from the footnote there is not a single sentence in this post that doesn't end in either a question mark or an exclamation point! No, I do not care! No, I am not overreacting!! FIGHT FOR JANE WHITE'S WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
*If the secretary of the NAACP for 35 years from its inception on isn't a major civil rights leader, bite me. He was a reasonably soft-spoken guy who didn't like Communists and didn't want to endanger the NAACP's tax-exempt status by condemning McCarthy; he was also a blond-haired, blue-eyed guy who was about 1/10 black, but 1/10 was more than enough for a guy who was born in the 1890s to be considered 100% lynching-eligible. As witness at least one attempt to lynch him. He was instrumental in a whole lot of the legal gruntwork that eventually got anti-lynching laws passed, and he worked closely with W.E.B. DuBois and other civil rights leaders from that period whose names *haven't* been forgotten, and he was a close friend of Langston Hughes and Paul Robeson and a bunch of other guys you remember from high school English, and I don't know who I'm ranting at.
