Since 18 June 2008, someone’s deleted references to the Rhuthun /Ruthin blog on the Ruthin page of Wikipedia.
When last we checked, 0.9 per cent of people arrived at this blog from Wikipedia. Not a huge proportion. Why, then, am I so irritated by the deletion?
1. Someone enjoyed this blog, cared enough and took the trouble to include this blog on the Ruthin Wikipedia page. This was both as an external link and in reference to our post on the pronunciation of Rhuthun (Wikipedia details here). Thank you to whomsoever you are.
When last we checked, 0.9 per cent of people arrived at this blog from Wikipedia. Not a huge proportion. Why, then, am I so irritated by the deletion?
1. Someone enjoyed this blog, cared enough and took the trouble to include this blog on the Ruthin Wikipedia page. This was both as an external link and in reference to our post on the pronunciation of Rhuthun (Wikipedia details here). Thank you to whomsoever you are.
2. I felt that the whole section on spelling and pronunciation—Rhuthun or Ruthin—was important, and this blog’s contribution to that debate meaningful. Hence the importance of the link back here. There was quite a bit on the debate but it’s been hacked to just sixteen words. Why? Who has the authority to cut it back? As well as here, the official spelling of the town’s name has been of interest recently to letter writers in the local press, for example, and has previously occupied the town council’s agenda.
3. It’s so strange that Wikipedia appears to have such an inflexible policy regarding external links to blogs while any kook and nutcase can vandalise or misrepresent any subject at all, on a whim.
Until someone (or more than one?) linked Wikipedia to this site, I was vehemently opposed to Wikipedia. It appears as spam in search engines, especially google; it's often riddled with basic grammar and punctuation errors; and its views are can be unaccountable, clouded, imprecise, conjectural and even sometimes insensate.
But then I mellowed. Till now. No hard feelings, though. Just a little irked, that’s all.
3. It’s so strange that Wikipedia appears to have such an inflexible policy regarding external links to blogs while any kook and nutcase can vandalise or misrepresent any subject at all, on a whim.
Until someone (or more than one?) linked Wikipedia to this site, I was vehemently opposed to Wikipedia. It appears as spam in search engines, especially google; it's often riddled with basic grammar and punctuation errors; and its views are can be unaccountable, clouded, imprecise, conjectural and even sometimes insensate.
But then I mellowed. Till now. No hard feelings, though. Just a little irked, that’s all.
Tags:
Wiki Project