Cruz. Candidate. Confusion.

This piece is about open-data contributions and community guidelines; the author is not concerned with the politics itself

A stunning article went up on Quartz about a candidate for the New York state assembly on the 18th of August. The article lists the efforts of Erika Herzog (aka BrillLyle) to create a disambiguation page that would prevent future confusion between a popular porn-star and a state assembly candidate with the same name – Catalina Cruz. Herzog’s attempts to create the disambiguation page were turned down by a Wikipedia editor who flagged it for removal based on grounds of notability.

The crux of Herzog’s argument – who has a spotty record of violating community regulations – was that the candidate Cruz is considered notable according to Wikipedia’s definition of notability. To that effect, she provided about 30 third-party citations of media outlets where candidate Cruz had been covered and as of the article’s publishing, that number has risen to 50. The Colombia Wikimedia Chapter subsequently contended that she had enough coverage in Spanish-language sources to meet the notability criterion of being recognized in the public eye. Herzog, understandbly so, makes the accusation that the Wikipedia editor was biased against Spanish-language publications – which makes up most of the citations she provides. The editors, however, disagreed vehemently. Moreover, the article discussion reveals that there were users who commented on Cruz only being mentioned “in passing” in those sources which is not enough to meet the notability criterion.

Regardless of the Cruz situation, what cannot be disputed is that Herzog is the least desirable person to have advocated it; her community guidelines violations only work against the article and bring hostility which may not have been there if it was another user – she admits this herself. The definition of notability has been reasonably developed by the volunteers and their standing tradition; however, I believe that there should be room for exceptions in cases such as this one. Herzog’s permanent ban from contributing to Wikipedia, I believe, was inevitable due to her history of toxic discourse. It follows that her contributions to the site would also warrant an unsympathetic review, nipping all hope of an exception at the bud.

Whether or not Catalina Cruz, the candidate, finds her face on the largest online encyclopedia, one must observe – with dismay – that there is a chance that valid contributions could be rejected on the basis of who made it in these communities. Separation between contribution and stigma surrounding the contributor is a utopian vision whilst contributing to open data/source resources remains both a behavioural and a technical undertaking.

Herzog’s article can be found here