Online identity scholar danah boyd, whose legal name is devoid of capital letters, had to argue on her own Wikipedia article’s talk page to correct its use of mixed case. Wikipedia policy, it was argued, tends to take its cue from the media (who usually foul the name up themselves). But isn’t she the world’s leading expert on how her name is spelled? Isn’t there a legal document that can remove all doubt? May we live in interesting times.
About a week ago she wrote about Wikipedia’s guideline against editing a page about yourself and about the process of assessing whether someone is “notable” — a process she thinks is flawed.
I love Wikipedia and think the recent hysterics about libel are utter piffle. But I can see this sort of thing becoming a problem as the site continues to scale up. Aside from current events, anything that’s unquestionably worthy of a Wikipedia article has been written already.
One day, after you get your allotted fifteen minutes of fame, you might well spend the next ten arguing with a Wikipedian about whether you’re notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Surreal. But at least you’ll have some say in the matter.