May 27th, 2009 
Click here to take a look at the current version of my Wikipedia page.
Some Wikipedians like Orangemike seem to “come from a place of ‘no’ and I come from a place of ‘yes’” (to quote one of my favorite Real Housewives, Bethany Frankel ). Orangemike’s Wikipedia User page states:
”I am a Wikipedia administrator, with a tendency to spend a fair amount of time on new-page patrol and general clean-up. I am considered to be toward the “deletionist” end of the inclusionist-deletionist spectrum, because I believe that many articles here (including not only new ones but many existing ones) are violations of our standards.”
I don’t think that some of these Wikipedia administrators get that out in the real world most of us don’t have time to learn the minutia of Wikipedia’s standards, rules and protocol. What they have created rivals the U.S. Tax Code. It’s a shame as I am someone who detests bureaucracy and red tape.
Anyone who puts forth the time and effort to become an expert and get special Wikipedia powers will most likely use these powers for their own gain. It is against Wikipedia rules to receive compensation for editing or creating Wikipedia pages, however I’m not sure it’s against their rules to use Wikipedia for political gain since apparently it’s ok that Orangemike’s photo shows that he was a ”delegate to the 2004 Democratic National Convention”.
What is someone without expertise in using Wikipedia to do if they feel a change needs to be made to make Wikipedia fair and balanced? They can’t hire someone according to Wikipedia rules. So basically, they are at the mercy of the Wikipedia administrators who have their own agenda and can police the site like a dirty cop. To quote Lord Acton, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.”
According to a source, “Actually, there is no policy against paying someone to be your ‘wiki-representative’– I do this kind of work professionally. However, Wikipedia does not make this obvious to people, and I suppose it’s been in their interest to maintain this impression. After all, who wants a flood of PR professionals trying to game the system? That said, I think this will eventually change, and more people will be doing what I do. ”
Fortunately for me I have a loud, far-reaching voice. I have many Twitter followers, Facebook friends, Ask Miss A Facebook Group members, and over 20,000 unique readers on AskMissA.com each month, so unbenounced to me this audience has protected me from the bullying of heavy-handed Wiki Gestapo. I’ve received messages from people I have never met who feel I merit a page. The fat lady hasn’t sung just yet, though. Take a look at the conversation on my Articles for Deletion or as the pros would write, AfD.
Undoubtedly there is much in this article that violates WP:YOURSELF and WP:PROMOTION. However, I believe the subject may still pass WP:BIO based on the following sources:
- OnTap, a Washington-area magazine with an editorial team, conducted an interview with her.
- PBS MediaShift‘s Mark Glaser included her among four subjects of a reported column that also featured video blogger Cali Lewis and Twitter’s Biz Stone.
- Washington Post‘s Reliable Source column also reported on her charitable activities (and related media attention) last year.
- In short, I think this article can be saved. It won’t look anything like what its subject wanted in the first place, but if someone had come along with these sources and written something cautious and conservative, this deletion debate probably would never have come up. If nobody else will volunteer to make these cuts, I can try to do this by tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday) EDT. WWB (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Keep After working with this article, it is clear the subject easily passes the general notability guideline, with multiple dedicated stories in the periodicals listed above, as well secondary coverage in CNN, the Washington Times and regional newspapers. Much of the sourcing actually meets WP:RS, even the first-party citations, it was just hard to tell given the original self-promotional tone and non-encyclopedic details. Perhaps this article began life as a vanity article, but that’s not a reason to delete it per se. I’ve now improved it, and I will continue working to improve it, but this article now deserves to stay. I don’t get involved in deletion debates often, but if one can move to close in favor of keeping an article, I’d like to do so now. WWB (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The administrators suck. I tried to edit incorrect information on a prominent Republican and they wouldn’t allow me to. I have the actual data and cited it but they wouldn’t allow it. I don’t use their site any longer.
“I don’t think that some of these Wikipedia administrators get that out in the real world most of us don’t have time to learn the minutia of Wikipedia’s standards, rules and protocol. What they have created rivals the U.S. Tax Code. It’s a shame as I am someone who detests bureaucracy and red tape.”
As someone who also detests the arbitrary exercise of authority, I must say that Wikipedia isn’t all that full of red tape. In fact, the rules are pretty straight forward, and you needn’t spend all that much “real-world” time to figure it out. It may take more than a late-night post-party hour, but not much more.
As someone who makes her living from self-promotion, I’d think that you would want to gain all the expertise necessary to do something correctly and smoothly so as not to stir up a hornet’s nest. Quit whining and do your homework!
Yes the Wiki Gods are smiling, you have been deleted off the site