Submitted by Chris Hughes on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 20:59.
Some weeks ago I submitted a completely neutral entry on Lockerz to Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), on the grounds that something which is as fast-growing as Lockerz is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I also contributed a small update to the Wikipedia entry for Liberty Media, the owners of Lockers.
After much (irrelevant) discussion and argument, both my page on Lockerz and my update to the Liberty Media entry have been killed by the editors at Wikipedia, even though there was acknowledgement that Lockerz is a significant site that really should have an entry in Wikipedia.
It seems that the main problem is that the viral marketing of the site has so completely annoyed the powers that be at Wikipedia that no entry about it can ever stand without some wikifool deleting it.
Some weeks ago I submitted a completely neutral entry on Lockerz to Wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org), on the grounds that something which is as fast-growing as Lockerz is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. I also contributed a small update to the Wikipedia entry for Liberty Media, the owners of Lockers.
After much (irrelevant) discussion and argument, both my page on Lockerz and my update to the Liberty Media entry have been killed by the editors at Wikipedia, even though there was acknowledgement that Lockerz is a significant site that really should have an entry in Wikipedia.
It seems that the main problem is that the viral marketing of the site has so completely annoyed the powers that be at Wikipedia that no entry about it can ever stand without some wikifool deleting it.
Shame on you Wikipedia.