I am very disappointed. Very disappointed indeed. I have asked, entreated, begged – even pleaded – for people to edit my entry on Wikipedia. But no-one has obliged. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Ashamed.
Why am I so exercised by this? The fun of ego-surfing aside, I do find such uninvited bibliographic concoctions somewhat impertinent. I’m with the composer Sorabji, who, in spite of his many idiosyncrasies, had a healthy disrespect for those he called, with some disdain, ‘lexicographical persons’. Call me idiosyncratic, or even eccentric (I dare you), but it’s partly why I am increasingly prone, when interviewed, to send up the entire exercise. At the moment, of course, I’ll do this only with friends who can be counted on to see the joke. And who would, in any case, be expecting it. For my friends who want me to be serious and sincere, well, I can do that, too. Anyone else, though, I regard as fair game. And what irks me most about such things as Wikipedia is that they didn’t even ask me for an interview. It’s as if I was as good as dead.
I hadn’t really thought much about this until I was talking with fantasy author Steph Swainston at Constitution the other day. Steph, who is very much alive (and who I hope won’t mind me saying this), criticized the habit in literary criticism in which commentators make statements about what they suppose to be the motivation of authors. It’s bad enough if you’re dead and can’t answer back – but much, much worse if you happen to be still living. Steph had learned of a student who was doing a dissertation on her books, and although, one presumes, was diligently beavering away at Steph’s novels, hadn’t even the wit (or courtesy) to pick up the phone and ask Steph herself what she thought of her own motivations. I suppose that had this student done so, any and all theoretical constructs about authorial motivation would have shrunk to nothing, like overcooked spinach.
So, please, for the sake of authorial amour propre, if nothing else, please do edit my Wikipedia entry. Be as creative and outrageous as you like. I won’t sue you, I promise. You can supply a nice picture, for a start. If you’re stuck for any, and can supply many pleasing shots of guinea pigs.
Tsk. Weedy, that wiki of yours.Literary scholars aren't allowed to play like writers are real and alive. The very last thing you want in an English dept is to have writers — not even faculty! — strolling in and telling the lit scholars which way is up. Makes the engineering deans look very sharply at the liberal-arts budgets.
I wonder, perchance, if the student disertating Ms. Steph was unaware of the simple logic of making a phonecall. The student is only a humanities major…
I see that the editing of my Wikipedia has begun. Keep up the good work.
Humph:Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Henry Gee and Anthony Bourdain. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 03:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Did the top chef rat me out, I wonder.
Bastards. Do I get any recourse, having been the subject of a Wikipedia article without my consent?
I have written to Wikipedia as follows:'This is an article about me. I have no problem with the content, but I was not contacted prior to the construction or dissemination of this article. I regard this as impertinent and discourteous. I have encouraged my friends and colleagues to edit it as they see fit but you have removed their edits. Please therefore take this email as formal notice that I disapprove of this article about me and I require that it is removed immediately.'
Wikipedia has replied: Dear Gee Henry,Thank you for your email.Articles are not deleted by request but only in accordance with the deletion policy [link snipped]. However, if you have any concerns with the article I would be happy to try to resolve them. Please note that I cannot delete the article as I have no authority to do so. Only the editing community can delete articles and this is done only in accordance with the policy I linked to.Yours sincerely,Ryan Fosterto which I have in turn respondedDear Foster RyanThank you for your kind and prompt reply. If the article cannot be deleted, then I wonder why you class attempts by my friends to edit it, clearly in accordance with my wishes [link to this blog post] , as vandalism? What gives Wikipedia to assert its own version of the truth? After all, I am Henry Gee, a fact which can be supported by a wealth of documentary evidence, and in an article about me I would suggest that I should be the arbiter of such things.Sincerely,Henry Gee
I received a further update from Wikipedia, which, as you can see, was very fair and reasoned.Dear Gee HenryI'm not sure exactly which edits were made by people you know but looking at thehistory I see a couple things I could point out.The information removed in this edit (that was previously added by two differentaccounts) were unsourced and unverifiable:[snipped]Same for the information added in this edit:[snipped]While we don't prohibit editing articles about subjects that users are related to,we do ask them to take extra caution when doing so as to maintain a neutral pointof view in the articles. I've included (below) some links that you may wish topass along to those editing your biography. Reading these guidelines andfollowing them would be the easiest way to ensure that the content added by yourfriends is not removed.[several snipped links]I hope that these links help. If your friends continue to have issues with theircontent being removed I would suggest that they inquire on the articles talk page(found by clicking the 'discussion' tab at the top of the article). Otherwise,they may contact the user or users who are removing the content via their talkpage (which can be found by clicking the 'history' tab at the top of the articleand the 'talk' link next to the relevant username).I do hope I've explained this well enough.Yours sincerely,Ryan Fosterto which I repliedDear RyanThanks so much, again, for your prompt, informative and courteous reply. Yes, I am aware of these edits, which have my sanction – but I am also more aware than I was for the need for Wikipedia to maintain a certain balance and tone. Therefore I shall ask my colleagues to edit with these caveats in mind.Sincerely,Henry GeeThe lesson is clear, people. Edit away, but be subtle.
Actually, Henry, what you could do is to keep clicking the little "undo" buttons when they "revert" and having us edit until the proliferation of nonsense becomes a problem and they vote to yank your page, and/or the case becomes famous and attracts hordes of vandals, and you get your 30 seconds of internet fame.
Also, I will point out that my edit was too sourced. Twice. In footnotes.Humph again.
Ha ha!! Excellent!"HG is a ginormous llamelipoid spoon beast from the planet Farthybluntspank (citation needed)"
Giggle.
Well, Old Scrotum, I see they've locked your page. It opens again on my birthday, though, so I know what I'm doing after the champagne.
Oops, you're beat, Henry, your nemesis has no sense of humor at all. See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AthaenaraBA from UCB in Ethnic Studies, is proud of having sent checks to Mensa. I see that her page is editable, though.
Bastards bastards bastards.