Wikipedia's McCarthyism

If you don't know what McCarthyism is, look it up now.

Done?

If you didn't know what it was, there's a better-than-even chance that you used Wikipedia. It's many people's default Web site to get quick answers to their must-know questions.

I, and many others, have a problem with Wikipedia. Like any open-source site, it relies on individuals to fill it's almost endless pages with content. The site has it's faults, inaccuracies and mistakes, but what data source doesn't? On the whole, it's a great site that provides information to millions of internet users a day. The content is kept as accurate as it is by a league of "experts" who monitor content to keep it as up-to-date as possible - it's a yeoman's job, for sure.

So why do I have a problem with it?

If you read the terms to posting on Wikipedia, you'll notice it has a clause about self-posting. It will not allow a link to an external site to be posted on a subject page if posted by the link's source. It's to prevent spam, they say. Hey, everyone hates spam, right? Way to go Wiki! Kill all spam!

Or, not so much ...

A few months ago, I decided to link a few of the past interviews I've done on the DeadJournalist.com site to the subject's Wikipedia page. For some of the bands or artists I've interviewed, there's a tremendous amount of information available. So while there might be a nugget or two of information that my little interview unearthed, most of the information has been mined by multiple sources. But for others, there isn't much information available. A link to my interview on Wikipedia might have proved to be worth the time John Q. Public took to read it.

When I do an interview, I like doing a little research. I don't want to ask a question who's answer is so commonplace that it is a waste of time for the artist who is taking the time to do a little pr by answering my questions. Sometimes, the artist's Web site or MySpace page doesn't have much information, and so the progression begins: first I got to Wikipedia, then to other on-line interviews, and so forth and so on, until I get a feel for the information landscape of the artist.

That sounds like 21st century research 101 to me. I'm sure I'm not the only person that follows that path when trying to dig up a little information.

So imagine my surprise when I found that all of my links had been deleted by the watchful eye of Wikipedia. I had been termed a spammer and thus my links as spam. All of this because, several months ago, I couldn't figure out why my interview link with The Raveonettes kept getting deleted off their Wikipedia page. I kept reposting when it kept getting removed. This went on for several days, until finally, the watchful eye of big brother Wiki said no more.

I get it, I shouldn't have posted my own links. I should have made up a fake ID and posted them from some other IP address. Excuse my ignorance.

Look, I'd love to say that this little site of mine generates thousands of unique visits per day. While I may not be the biggest music-based site on the Web, and my interviews may not be the Pulitzer Prize-worthy, during the last 20 months I've contributed 50+ interviews to the public for consumption. Some have been read a lot, some not as much. The bottom line is they are out there if you choose to read them.

But having the governing eye of Wikipedia controlling the flow of information on an open-source site by preventing additional subject-matter to be posted solely based on the fact it was posted by the source's author, should be (and pardon the pun) a red flag for concern.

I'm not trying to compare my plight to that of those writers in the 1950's whose voice was stifled under the guise of patriotism. I no longer earn my living as a writer; although I did for several years. And if it weren't for a cold Sunday afternoon, I probably would have never mentioned this. But the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me.

People deserve the opportunity to choose if they want to read a legitimate piece of journalism. I understand the need to prevent illegitimate or inaccurate information from desecrating a trusted content provider. However, deleting links that provide additional information on a subject just because it happen to be posted by the author - who didn't create an account under a pseudonym - is nothing short of 21st century McCarthyism.