Matt Cutts can't even make Wiki

29 comments

In the latest display of arbitary deletions, Matt Cutts entry at wikipedia was marked for deletion...and the regular trend of 'we have to listen seriously to these stupid requests' ensued.

Has wikipedia jumped the shark? It seems like the inmates are running the asylum there now. I'm disgusted enough with the stupidity over there that I've forcibly removed all links from that site to any of my projects - link pop be damned.

Hat tip to my friends at the actuarial outpost for sending this too me.

Comments

Looks like the consensus is

Looks like the consensus is overwhelmingly "keep".

Just seems to be a "Warren" who wants him removed, whom interestingly enough is a big Microsoft fan by the looks of his contributions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Warrens

Rallying to the defence of the article on Matt Cutts ...

... is Danny Sullivan over at SearchEngine Land (are we calling it SEL yet?)

He's really gone all out - I think it's the longest piece posted over there to date.

Danny's open letter to Wikipedia's Editors

Does Wikipedia have a

Does Wikipedia have a complaints procedure for limiting the damage of individual editors? There are some very anal people there who claim a topic for their own, and obsessively prevent anyone else contributing to it. Articles retain their shape not on the basis of accuracy, but according to who is the most obsessed over it.

*sigh* Wikipedia depends on

*sigh* Wikipedia depends on the notion that a million people are wiser than one man, and that the majority must be right. Stop me where I go wrong, but most civilised societies try hard to prevent outright mob rule these days

Exactly.

But democracy is a little rough around the edges by its very nature, no?

Matt's valuable contributions!

"Delete. Being what is essentially a PR agent at a corporation doesn't qualify one for a biography at Wikipedia. Before choosing to vote "keep", ask yourself if you would still vote keep if this guy worked for any company but Google. -/- Warren 21:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)"

Agreed!

However:

Matt qualify for a biography at Wikipedia, not because he works at Google, but because of his generous informative contributions to the webmasters community during several years!

Sorry, no

'generous informative contributions to the webmasters community' doesn't qualify someone to have a bio page. That's a completely unqualified statement and is an example of the kind of 'i love/i hate' garbage that goes on over at wikipedia.

There may be justification for a bio page for him, but statements like that aren't what do it. Statements like that are proof the bio SHOULD be deleted.

>Matt qualify for a

>Matt qualify for a biography at Wikipedia, ...because of his generous informative contributions to the webmasters community during several years!

Agreed but as Danny points out - they seem to only value off line (Old Media) references and accreditations. That is rather odd when you think about it.

Um... you know, despite the

Um... you know, despite the perception that MC is little more than a media mouthpiece for G, I have this nagging feeling he does other work there too? Something about spam...? Search quality?

My mom said she never heard of him

We all like Matt but its not like he is a household name. Outside of our small community, Matt Cutts is nobody and has had no effect on society, the world, etc...

The mommy test is irrelevant

Outside of our small community, Matt Cutts is nobody and has had no effect on society, the world, etc...

Matt IS the face (and possible hands) of an organization with VAST effect on society. “Nobody” or “somebody” doesn't matter. He is important if only by association.

notable

Apart from being one of the visable Googlers (after Larry,Sergi and Marisa) and having the power of life and death over any website on the internet.

Question is what does Matt think ? if I was him i'd maybe want the entry gone as that stuff about the NSA doesnt help (and I bet the NSA isnt happy about that either)

Oh Yeah?

Well, Matt Cutts said he's never heard of your mother either. In fact, I've sent a RFD (request for deletion) on HER bio page.

Wow

Thats the first real tekkie-nerd mother joke I have ever gotten. Rofl. But seriously, would you include Matt in a real encyclopedia? Not to mention he might not even be working at Google long enough to matter. Then it will get marked for deletion.

Who cares?

I could care less what else is on WikiPedia, as long as what I would reasonably expect to be on there is on there (the usual encyclopedia stuff). Matt Cutts' bio, however, looks like an 8th grade book report. It should be up for improvements, but if they decide to delete it, so what? Everyone who needs to know who he has, already does. WikiPedia shouldn't be used to measure someone's status. There are other "people directories" and topic-specific encyclopedia-ish sites for people's bios and to show who is important in what niche.

Either way, WikiPedia is crap. It sounds like a good idea- sort of. But come on now, it was inevitable that with growth, politics would enter the picture. And with a site that's so freely edited, one person can say "Hey, this entry should be deleted, so please let us know what you think! We do not care what you think, and this is not a vote, but instead of writing us letters, post it here on this page, then once the uproar dies down, we will decide to do whatever the fuck we want."

Still not important

Again, 'important by association' in the SEO community doesn't make one worthy of a link or an article at wiki. 'important by association' is opinion and not even in the general neighbourhood of any facts.

Of course, it's arguments like that (for and against) that are making wiki so arbitrary these days.

Would you be kind, wheel

Would you be kind to elaborate more on this one:

"There may be justification for a bio page for him"

expanding

"there may be justification" was just me covering my butt - I don't know if there is justification or not. Wikipedia wants references from external sources to validate the importance of topic pages and links and Possibly Matt Cutts has those (if not, then the page should be deleted by their rules). However, I've seen pages get deleted despite having those external and important references. All you have to do is get a bunch of puppets to say 'I don't think that is an important or noteworthy reference' or 'but it's only a passing reference, the whole article wasn't about him'. How are you going to argue with that?

Ultimately I think his page is still there and made it past the RFD because of a bunch of Google-lovers and that they've likely violated their guidelines and all manner of past precedence by doing so. No disprespect to Matt, it's just that in the grand scheme of things, being king of spam at Google isn't noteworthy. It was nothing 10 years ago, it'll be nothing in another 10 years, and right now he's known in a very small niche community.

In short, this is a good example of the stupidity that is wikipedia right now. Can't wait for the search engine.

There are lots...

...of articles LESS worthy of being kept on. Why fret over the MC one? My guess is that people just wanna remove it to make a "statement". Well duh.

Wiki is not lame IMV, but yeah, a lot of lame edits and other depressing stuff are taking place there. It's still under par* tho. On the whole.

FTR: in twenty years' time, people are gonna wonder who was this M. Cutts person that SEOs got all worked up about... Wouldn't it be nice if WikiP2027 had just the answer. Deleting stuff like this is not smart AFAICP**

* under par == good (for those of you not into golf lingo)
** P == predict

How do you prove the

How do you prove the worthiness of someone to wikipedia. My father, for example has been in major magazine publications for farming for years. None are online, and I expect an article on him would be deleted.

The problem is definition.

The problem is the definition of Wikipedia. Is it supposed to be something akin to the ideal Google "our goal is to index everything" (lol) or is it's goal to be just an alternative to Encyclo Brit and similar publications?

From the wiki entry about wiki:
"Wikipedia has been criticized for a perceived lack of reliability, comprehensiveness and authority."

I think they're trying to be everything to every one and having problems. From the same page:

"Future directions for authoring content... We want to let anybody edit but we don't want to show vandalized versions. It would be fun for me to announce to the press that the front page of Wikipedia is open for public editing for the first time in five years."

If you use the "mom guideline", who the hell is "Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales"? My mom sure wouldn't know or give/pay 2 cents of attention to this guy even if he helped launch Wiki and even if she uses the service often.

Do you think my nephew's obsession with Pokemon deserves an entry? That info is not exactly typical material for an encyclopedia entry. Before you say "but Pokemon is a big deal, it is an international sensation". Yeah, so? Just about any cartoon character large or small is listed in Wikipedia along with their connections to other cartoons, voice actors, and more. Scale/popularity is not the issue.

I'd say that while I think that it is sad that Matt is just about the only real publicly known figure in SEO representing Google... An entry for him is stronger in use/need/etc. than the need for a Snakes on The Plane wiki entry. I mean c'mon. When I tell people who are new to SEO about checking out Matt Cutts for a few tips on Google rankings... I expect something to be in Wiki because it is not a static Encyclo Brit from the local public library, it is a living, nearly breathing set of documents.

It just needs to continue to grow, adapt, and figure itself. It needs to define just what it wants to be. If it is supposed to be similar to Google with it's "index the world" policy, then it's going to need a lot of obscure facts and trivia, like Matt Cutts. Hell, even "grnidone's" Pappy may warrant an entry... If Wiki is supposed to be the knowledge base to end all knowledge bases.

Matt could

devalue the links from wikipedia if he wanted. Would that make him relevant enough to the wiki editors?

Good luck to them with their...

new search engine. If they don't get a grip on this issue, I'd wager that eventually they'll be moderating themselves into irrelevance. Well unless someone has already given them a lifetime pass to control that section of the interwebs.

wheel

how relevant is Matt?

its all a double standard

Ultimately I think his page is still there and made it past the RFD because of a bunch of Google-lovers and that they've likely violated their guidelines and all manner of past precedence by doing so. No disprespect to Matt, it's just that in the grand scheme of things, being king of spam at Google isn't noteworthy

Glad to still see Doug Heil is relavant and thanks to Wiki my mom now understands what goatse is, hopefully it will make the next encyclopedia as it appears to be very relevant and future generations should appreciate the value as its so noteworthy

Matt should have just BMW'd Wikipedia

Imagine if Matt just did a BMW on Wikipedia - that would have got their attention real quick.... and enough 'offline' press coverage to comply with the 'rules' of citation. They'd find out who Matt was real quick...

:)

well

If Wikipedia wanted to be an information guide to everything, then great, have Matt Cutts in there. I think he is great and has been helpful and insightful for our niche. But if they want to be literally an online encyclopedia of absolute important people. ... well lets face it, when matt cutts leaves Google, nothing changes. (besides a great employee lost)

..

The fact that Wikipedia lists a loser and wacko like Doug and will not list Matt Cutts just proves my point that Wikipedia is a waste of time and should not be so ?prominent in the google listings.

Wikipedia reminds me of the ODP, a bunch of 'friends' helping each other out...

With great power comes...

...a big head.

don't knock the losers

>> The fact that Wikipedia lists a loser and wacko like Doug

Being a loser is not reason enough to not be listed. The bigger the loser the more others need to know about you ;-)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.