Francis Magalona’s Wife on Wikipedia: A Good and Bad Thing
By Rico, 9:09 am Sat Mar 28 2009 - Editorial, Featured - 2 Opinions
Wikipedia user PiaMagalona, obviously the wife of the recently deceased Francis M, probably started becoming active on the online encyclopedia when she uploaded her husband’s photo back in 2007, declaring it open for public distribution and consumption.
She continued her contributions even after her husband’s death, declaring that she would correct any mistakes written about her family on the Francis Magalona page. This is a good thing, because it’s great to have someone watch over your online identity after you pass away (See Fake Francis M Concerts Sprouted Online).
At the same time, I wonder: Is this also a bad thing? Would this limit the potential accuracy of Francis M’s article? Ultimately, what makes Wikipedia work well is how it comes up with a relatively accurate and comprehensive account on a variety of topics, thanks to the efforts, knowledge, and outlook of its contributors.
Yet regarding Francis M’s article, would people be willing to challenge the outlook of his wife? What if, in the future, various sources lend credibility to a less-than-great portrayal of the Filipino musician? Would anyone add these aspects to Francis M’s biography—even if proven true beyond reasonable doubt—risking the ire of the rapper’s widow and his fans?
Now, I’m not saying Francis M was a bad man, nor am I implying that he or his family have done anything controversial. But here’s something the Filipino Wikipedia community should consider while continually trying to provide an accurate picture of this great Filipino: are they willing to push for what they know is proven true, even if unpopular?
(Thanks to Eugene Alvin Villar, who I call Ang Dakilang Wikipedian, for telling me that Pia Magalona’s active on Wikipedia)
Eugene
8:08 pm Sat Mar 28 2009
The solution is simple: Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View and verifiability policies. Combining these two, this means that every statement should be presented as a something that have been mentioned in reliable sources.
So for controversial statements, you don’t say “PGMA is corrupt”, you say “Based on a survey conducted by Pulse Asia on March 2009, 66% of Filipinos believe PGMA is corrupt” then link to the survey. (This is just an example, by the way.)
Rico
11:11 pm Mon Mar 30 2009
Good point. AFAIK, the relatively effective enforcement of that contributes to Wikipedia’s success.