You are currently viewing My (Fleeting) Wikipedia Glory

My (Fleeting) Wikipedia Glory

Life has got in the way of my blogging at the moment, particularly the part of life associated with work. Apologies for the infrequency. However, I had to return to post this news: I’m on Wikipedia. For now. If you ever needed confirmation that the information on that site shouldn’t be trusted, here you have it.

I was checking my stats; I don’t do this very often, especially with the week-long sabbaticals I’ve been taking, but occasionally I like to check them to see where people might be coming from (I discovered that I had a link to my review of Mike Carey’s The Devil You Know on the blog of the publishers due to checking my stats). So, the second highest referring link was for a Wikipedia page (mostly they come from bizarre Google searches [and I do mean bizarre]; the only regulars, apart from No Referring Link, are Yet Another Comics Blog and Johnny Bacardi) and curiosity led to bafflement.

If you go to the web archive of the Wikipedia page for the Collings and Herrin podcast, you will see there is a link to my ‘review‘. If you click on the link, you will see that, yes, it’s a post from my blog but it’s not technically a review; it’s more a promoting of their podcast. It’s rather embarrassing that my only mention on Wikipedia is not actually accurate. Because of this, I don’t think that I’ll be on Wikipedia for very long (which is why I included the screenshot at the top of the post), but I get a perverse thrill out of seeing my blog name and a link on one of their pages.

But why was my non-review post chosen to represent people talking about the Collings and Herrin podcast? Surely there are better reviews out there that, you know, actually review the podcast? I mean, if you input ‘collings and herrin podcast review‘ into Google, the link to my blog turns up on the second page but that’s not really exhaustive research, is it? Obviously, I haven’t contacted the people responsible and asked them to perhaps choose a better review, because I am shallow and vain, but it does make you wonder if the person read my review before including it on the page.

So, I’d like to apologise to Andrew Collins and Richard Herring for the lack of review on my part for their entertaining and amusing podcast. If it makes them feel any better, I have paid to see a Richard Herring show and purchased an Andrew Collins book. Thank you, gentlemen, for getting me a fleeting wisp of internet recognition via your Wikipedia entry.

[EDIT: obviously, the Wikipedia page no longer has a reference to my review. But it did.]



Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.