The discrimination of Wikraffiti
So a little while ago I “made-up” the word “Wikraffiti“. I assume it is fairly obvious to all what the word means, and while I never truly proceeded to push it into the sphere of consciousness that is the internet meme world, I did make a Wikipedia article about it to address the very issues it was meant to encompass.
The results were nothing less than savage.
First the word description was “deleted” from Wikipedia by technocratic elitists who would rather spend their time squashing what they do not understand, or feel is Neologism and self-reference. I will not speculate as to which they feel it was, but they did tend to make reference to the Neologism and self-reference more than them being technocratic elitists. This prejudice essentially means that I have no way of referencing this word in future discussions as no one will be able to find out it’s true meaning. At any rate, this happened almost 3 years ago, I am not sure how it took me this long to actually find out, something to do with work apparently. I would however like to take the time to say that now more than ever my “made-up” “neologinistic” “self-referencing” word is truly needed.
It would seem that on an almost daily basis that whilst surfing Wikipedia I often see posts that have been vandalized, and since surfaces that are often able to handle “posts” or “changes” from others have become ubiquitous as “walls” (ala Facebook etc.) then I see not why something like the word “Wikraffiti” is not only valid, but captures the truest sense of what the act of defiling someones (or somethings) Wikipedia page is all about. It is like graffiti that while easily removed, does in fact need to be “scrubbed” off the virtual “wall”.
I therefore move to have this word returned to it’s rightful place as a reasonable reference to this type of vandalism, and if you feel the need to dispute it’s truthiness, then do so on your own grounds.
