Reflections, mid-publish

The Google Twin article has done its thing in print nationally (meaning all-but-Toronto), online (meaning, you know, here), and will be put into ink for Toronto next Saturday.

And that means things are afoot!

As I had anticipated, there is fresh controversy over the validity of my Wikipedia listing. As I am now learning for another article on what makes a person wiki-worthy, there are certain guidelines of "notability" that a person has to have if their Wikipedia entry is to stay up.

I knew I would probably fly under the radar until the article went to print, and, as I suspected, I was sitting pretty until it went online/in the paper on Saturday. Now it has been flagged as not having enough documentation to prove my already questionable notability, but the kind and helpful Alan K'necht is helping to sort that out (without my even asking! He is a wonderful soul!), as am I. He was also kind enough to mention the whole ordeal (and thus, continue to pump up this BG!) on his blog.

I won't be heartbroken if my Wikipedia entry falls away. It was an interesting experiment while it lasted. But, as my colleague Jenny Wagler says, Wiki will be sorry when I do become (significantly) more notable one day and they have to start from scratch.

Interestingly, even as they say in one breath that I'm questionably notable, they quote me in another. My Google Twin article is actually referenced in the Wikipedia Signpost newsroom.

Also, shout out to Donna B. from Ottawa who sent me props on the article via Facebook! It's always nice (and certainly not the norm) to get positive feedback about things we write, and it seems she has a similar Googleganger predicament.