Wikipedia: Please Don’t Be So Strict, Or Just Forget It All!

I was looking for a 2chan emoticon to put on my comment (on a troll thread). As usual, I went to Wikipedia’s article about emoticons, when I noticed that the familiar emoticons I was looking were not there anymore.

Perhaps they moved it to a separate article. I searched for a specific page about 2chan emoticons, and found none.

And then I opened the article’s talk page. Upon reading it, I could only do a facepalm.


A senior editor deleted the whole list of 2chan emoticons, because they did not have ‘verified source’. Several readers opposed the deletion, some of them offered reliable links to counter the ‘unverified’ argument. But that didn’t move this editor at all, arguing that those links were only hobbyist’s personal articles, and thus, unverifiable.  While the original list was somewhat overflown with obscure items, it was very informative for readers who wished to look up on an emoticon reference.

Dear Senior Editors,

We’ve seen much of those emoticons on the internet. If you read any personal post by a Japanese, or follow a Japanese artist on Twitter, you’ll see those emoticons all over their posts. And yet, you said they were ‘unverified’. Well, they got less exposure because they belong to a different cultural sphere. On the other hand, internet trends such as meme and emoticon grow and evolve too fast to gain academic attention within a reasonable time frame, and it’s just ridiculous to rely solely on academic sources for internet trends, since scientific communities are already full with much more important matters to deal with. For this field, please just trust your eyes and don’t expect more than that, or else you should just purge all your articles on recent internet phenomenon, since they will never be covered in any journals while still trending.

PS: I suspect that the ‘unverified’ claim stemmed from cultural prejudice towards east Asian, or specifically, otaku culture.

Wikipedia: Please Don’t Be So Strict, Or Just Forget It All!

One thought on “Wikipedia: Please Don’t Be So Strict, Or Just Forget It All!

  1. exalt says:

    Yes…. the same thing happened to me and it occurred to be that the editors of Wikipedia seems to have some undue level of scepticism towards otaku/internet-based things, just like how Danny Choo’s Wikipedia article was deleted for “lacking noteworthiness”, when he’s actually a giant in the otaku world. On the other hand, it seems like even scrubs in supposedly more legit or tangible fields like writing novels or poetry get their own articles. This despite the fact that Danny Choo gets far more viewers than many of the traditional writers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s