At MyDD’s Breaking Blue miniblog, contributor Texas Nate is alarmed that the Wikipedia entry for the late Steve Gilliard had been nominated for deletion.
I didn’t agree with Gilliard much, and I don’t know Texas Nate at all, but I agree this development is worrisome. As I pointed out last week, it’s not the first time entries for bloggers have been so nominated — and as that effort was beaten back then, so should it be now.
As a Wikipedian in good standing, I added my two cents, reproduced below:
The article certainly needs work — indeed, it was only begun upon the announcement of his passing on Sunday — but more to accord with Wikipedia style polices rather than meet NPOV guidelines.
When the big book on the liberal netroots is written, Gilliard will be more than a footnote. Wikipedia has the ability to record that now, and I believe it should.
Update: Good news — after a string of “keeps,” the silliness is over:
Easy call here. The only arguments for deletion are thinly veiled personal attacks. The New York Times only does obits if you are notable. Also, the claim that one must be notable enough to be in a paper encyclopedia is patently absurd. Agreed, notability should be considered, but in Mr. Gilliard’s case there is absolutely no question about that.
Kudos to you sir. I’ve become so accustomed to people to the right of me making all their judgments based on us/them winner/loser strategies, instead of defining overriding principles that superseded political gotchaism.
Gilly was certainly one capable of error, and more capable of antagonizing people on the right. But he wasn’t inconsequential, deserving to be ignored by Netizen annals.
Your principles are showing, and I admire the ones that showed in this decision.