October 21, 2008

Request

I haven't looked at the Wikipedia article about me in a long time, but my wife was complaining about it not being as high quality as it could be.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

27 comments:

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Well write your own damn entry and submit it. You know all the things you think important about you, the work you've done, the ideas you feel you've contributed, so write it all up and edit the page, or else post here (or email one of us) and we can edit.

As of right now the article looks like it was written by John Podhoretz. For that matter, so does John Podhoretz's entry.

What a shock.

BTW, first a new photo, now an updated wikipedia entry. Are you looking for a new job or just trying to boost your profile?

MensaRefugee said...

Given the Uber-liberal bias of moderators at Wikipedia... its already a pretty good article Steve..

Anonymous said...

i created and posted a 'wikipedia template' that offers my version of my article.

Stopped Clock said...

I think it's pretty good quality in terms of being informative ... there's things there I wouldn't ever learn by reading your blog. Admittedly the controversy section is probably the part most people will notice first, but what else can we really expect for someone who writes a blog focused around controversial issues?

I think that Wikipedia as a whole is a good source of information and that those of us who consider it to be biased in favor of leftists really should try comparing Wikipedia to print encyclopedias such as Britannica and Encarta, and to political information sites on the Internet. Wikipedia is probably the best friend we've got outside of our own web rings.

Evil Sandmich said...

I tried to add an update to your profile that made mention of the phrase Uncle Tim, but it was taken down :-(

But yeah, when I saw your profile I figured you just didn't care about it, which is a perfectly acceptable stand. In its current state it's fairly obvious that it's not authoritative, but if you start trying to fix it you'll be married to it forever.

Conrad Bibby said...

So what are you asking?

Velvetgunther said...

I didn't even know you had a wiki page.....
well...I should have known...
"though one thing he has not been able to explain is the disproportionate number of the name "Steve" among people involved with biodiversity",
yeah, explain that! I think the other Steve, Pinker, wrote a whole chapter on that in his "Stuff of Thought".
The rest is kind of predictable, but keep it up! You're one hell of a journalist!
And also, write more about popular culture, like music, movies etc those are probably as good as the best of the essays that cover that stuff.

Velvetgunther said...

And I swear I didn't know your middle name was Ernest

Bill said...

Yeah, it could use some work. I remember that there was a longer, better Wikipedia article some time ago.

Wikipedia suffers from the "too many cooks spoil the broth" syndrome. Trying to manage Wikipedia articles is an exercise in futility, as a friend of mine points out in this article.

Daniel said...

Here is the entry as of about 12:00 PM EDT:

Steven Ernest Sailer (born December 20, 1958) is an American journalist and movie critic for The American Conservative, ex-correspondent for UPI, and VDARE.com columnist. He writes about race relations, gender issues, politics, immigration, IQ, genetics, movies, and sports. He is perhaps best known online as a blogger.

Sailer grew up in Los Angeles and attended UCLA and Rice University.[citation needed] From 1994 to 1998, he worked as a columnist for the conservative magazine National Review (He has published in it since then[1]).

Sailer, along with Charles Murray and John McGinnis, was described as an "evolutionary conservative" in a 1999 National Review cover story by John O'Sullivan.[2]

I remember previous versions of it including lots of quotes and brief descriptions of articles you wrote. I don't know why the entry is so sparse now.

josh said...

Whoa. You got called out by a "Chicano Studies" professor! This guy's point,BTW,that somehow Sailer is promoting some type of racial division among latinos is hilarious!

George said...

Just what you would expect from a "user" driven encyclopedia."Racist" blah blah blah."Pseudoscience" blah blah blah. More accusations of "racism" blah blah blah. On the bright side, nothing about child or animal abuse.

Figgy said...

On the other hand, it's not as negative as it could be. In fact, it's surprisingly matter of fact.

abe said...

Wow, you guys gutted the whole thing and removed ALL the controversies attached to Sailer. This won't stand, folks.

clem said...

BTW, first a new photo, now an updated wikipedia entry. Are you looking for a new job or just trying to boost your profile?

* manuscript of new book finished in time for election ... check

* ten hours of sleep after pulling all-nighters to finish said mss, on the cusp of fiftieth birthday ... check

* author photos updated for PR materials ... check

* Wikipedia entry updated ... aw, let someone else do it

Honestly, Steve, I've never seen anyone move the heaven and earth that's required in finishing a book against a hard deadline, and be so quiet about it. Do you think Steven Pinker doesn't advertise his forthcoming publications to the people who care the most about them? Damned right he does! And so should you!

Stopped Clock said...

Update: The page has been frozen in its current state for three days. All further disputes will have to take place on the talk page.

Also:

* It's against Wikipedia policy to edit an article about yourself, unless the edits are limited to things such as removing libel and fixing typos. Even if Steve wrote up an article himself and then sent it to one of us privately, it would likely be deleted for being "speculation".

* Not all of the people who were editing the page are readers of this blog. At least some of them are people who probably had never heard of Steve Sailer until the Wikipedia patrol software and a particular noticeboard page alerted them that there was a sudden spike in activity on that page.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Wow, you guys gutted the whole thing and removed ALL the controversies attached to Sailer. This won't stand, folks.

Probably not, but it should. If the article isn't going to bother with listing his intellectual contributions then it shouldn't go into the supposed controversies. And when the article states that his "highest profile critic" was John Podhoretz, that's pretty much like saying he was criticized by some man on the street (or in this case, some fat dude on his couch in his underwear watching a 24 hour Silver Spoons marathon.)

When I updated one of my politician's wiki entries to include his support for illegal immigration, the Wiki folks deleted it as placing "too much emphasis on one issue." So I had to go in and add his positions on a few other issues to get the edit to stick.

Truth said...

"BTW, first a new photo, now an updated wikipedia entry. Are you looking for a new job or just trying to boost your profile?"

Yeah Steve, what's up?

We all know these sort of things come in threes, what's next, smoking a pipe? a red corvette? some sort of a sexual scandal?

Anonymous said...

So, Steve, why don't you provide the citation needed to show you went to Rice University for 5 years? Just what would they accept?

Steve Sailer said...

Huh?

I don't know what this is about, but I went to Rice for four years, starting in August 1976 and graduating in May 1980.

Anonymous said...

"though one thing he has not been able to explain is the disproportionate number of the name "Steve" among people involved with biodiversity"

Why have you never broken down the Steven v. Stephen ratio? Are you hidng something?

Anonymous said...

One upside is that your entry downplays your track and field obsession. ;)

Kai Carver said...

Well. This post raises some "netiquette" questions. Requesting that readers of your blog update your Wikipedia page is almost as bad as editing it yourself, and can lead to worse results. There's nothing wrong with editing your own page, it's just frowned upon, for good reasons.

Here's the thing: Wikipedia is a commons. It's fairly well-tended, extremely useful, and greatly flawed. Inviting a mob of your readers to come and fix whatever it is they think is wrong with it is, if not a recipe for disaster, at least... bad form.

A lot of people don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's fairly subtle. You really have to try to work like an encyclopedist, cite your sources, and not argue a particular point of view.

Your post might have been a tad less reckless if you had posted a series of somewhat authoritative and neutral sources about yourself and invited people to refer to them for corrections or improvements to the article.

I don't mean to go all moralistic on you. I have no idea what it's like to be in the public spotlight and have a lot of nonsense written about me daily.

You're a busy famous journalist and you write for money. You don't have time to fiddle with Wikipedia and that's as it should be. Wikipedia is written by a lot of nobodies like me with too much time on their hands, but we do try to take care of it.

Brad G. said...

Request:

Sailer review of new album: THE CLASH - LIVE AT SHEA STADIUM.

Captain Jack Aubrey said...

Inviting a mob of your readers to come and fix whatever it is they think is wrong with it is, if not a recipe for disaster, at least... bad form.

Right. Because no one else ever does that...

Anonymous said...

I've come across more than a few Wikipedia entries that were clearly written/heavily edited
by the subject or a relative of.

The key to editing your own or a relatives Wikipedia entry is don't speak in first person (duh), speak in neutral terms, don't downplay any controversies (throwing in a few will throw readers off the trail), and don't include personal information no on besides the subject or a relative could possibly know or care about.

P.S. I suppose your mention of your Rice days now provides a source for Wiki we could link to, with the problem being that it would link to a page implicitly encouraging your readers to edit your Wiki entry.

So start your next post off with some perfectly irrelevant story about talking about your good old Rice days, and we can link to that.

Sideways said...

The big problem with the page would seem to be that it keeps getting gutted. The discussion page is ridiculously long and almost all of it discusses things that are no longer present.