This morning, I encountered something a bit disturbing that hit pretty close to home. It would seem that the “powers that be” over at Wikipedia felt that it was in their best interest to remove an entry dedicated to the GotNext website. Perhaps what was more disheartening wasn’t so much that I could no longer find any trace of it — but the fact that I wasn’t even contacted. Well, directly at least… like through email, for example. You would think when authors contribute to a site, steps would be taken to ensure that the author has a chance to responde directly. Not everyone has the luxury to babysit all of their registered accounts online.

But let’s get back on topic here. It took me several minutes of clicking through various links, reading through various policy and procedure documentation; followed by an inquiry to two of the Wikipedia admins directly responsible for its removal… (each of which I did my best to be as calm and diplomatic as possible.) before I finally found what I was looking for — an answer.

And I didn’t like it…

“GotNext has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt this website might not yet be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:Notability (websites) for the relevant guidelines. If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.”

I raised an eyebrow by this statement. Not notable enough. They couldn’t POSSIBLY be serious. In the past two years, we’ve achieved more momentum than most enthusiast sites achieve within their entire online lifespan. I doubt they use their own metric tools, but it’s my guess they may have looked to Alexa — which isn’t all THAT accurate mind you, to suppor their decision. Yet even if that were true — since when does an resource like Wikipedia start alienating entries that were genuinely created for a constructive purpose. Not one piece of that entry was created with the intention to drive more traffic — no shilling. Just straight-up information… and now it’s gone. I definitely took great steps to ensure that a. it was written from a neutral point of view… b. posted factual, accurate information and c. made sure that the entry did not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.

But they removed it anyways — because it wasn’t “notable enough”. Wow.

As you might expect — I’ve already decided that I’ll be challenging this. I’d like a more thorough explanation, and I’d prefer to hear it from a live person, not a bunch of policies that Wikipedia decidely created on a whim. I realize no one probably would ever enter “GotNext” in a Wiki search — but the principle of the matter is what especially irks me. To me, it just feels unfair. If I’ve erred in some way — I’d greatly appreciate someone pointing it out to me.

p.s. I find it VERY interesting that this manages to escape their ever-so-watchful eye and yet my entry which documents a site that has active content and a rightful place in the video game editorial scene was removed. Nah — Wikipedia isn’t being partial at all.