Wikipedia editors have begun nominating the entries of prominent sci-fi authors for deletion due to their conservative political views.
On July 21st, after being incorrectly tagged for “speedy deletion” and promptly deleted, the Wikipedia page for sci-fi author Michael Z. Williamson was restored, with an administrator explaining that “at least three people have challenged the speedy deletion so I’ve restored it for discussion.” This led to lengthy debate on whether Williamson was “notable” enough to qualify for a Wikipedia entry, with supporters citing his various accolades, such as his novel Freehold being a Locus bestseller, his recent anthology Forged in Blood becoming a national bestseller, and his Hugo Award nomination for his book Wisdom from My Internet, while opponents cite a lack of sources and reviews for his claims of notoriety.
Williamson was later tagged on Facebook by a fan hoping to bring attention to the deletion campaign and support for Williamson to the discussion page. This prompted Williamson to respond that the support “actually won’t help,” as Williamson is just one of many authors being targeted for deletion due to their political views:
“That actually won’t help. It requires citations on why the article is relevant, from people who can make that point.
Then, they’ll either claim you’re a “Sockpuppet,” or that the source is invalid, or not verifiable, etc.
I’m not the first person they’ve done this to. And they are now also going after Kratman and Hoyt. It’s blatantly an orchestrated attack on whom they think are “right wing” authors. Except neither I nor Sarah can credibly be called “right wing” unless you’re too ignorant to grasp the definition (which is most “liberals”).”
Tom Kratman is a US Army veteran, self-professed “political refugee,” and the author of The Legacy of the Aldenata series. Sarah A. Hoyt, the outspoken conservative author of the Prometheus award winning Darkship series, once remarked that she kept her politics private in order to gain a foot hold in the publishing industry. Both authors’ Wikipedia entries recently bore alerts that their respective pages were being considered for deletion, though Kratman’s remains while Hoyt’s page no longer displays the alert (the edit log of her entry notes that her page was previously nominated for deletion on July 23).
Some fans believe that aside from their political views, Williamson, Kratman, and Hoyt’s participation in the Sad Puppies campaigns, a set of Hugo Awards nomination campaigns which aimed to promote works which break the alleged publishing dogma of ‘social justice,’ may have drawn the ire of various editors.
Williamson would later address the issue at length in a post to his blog titled The Massive Failure That Is Wikipee, asserting that his page was targeted for political reasons and that “giving a shit about some page argued over by fat, angry, pompous failures is approximately #4,762,051”:
“What it comes down to is politics. These are largely fat, incel leftist failures (I’ve met a number of them), and I’m the diametric opposite. They can hide in internet anonymity and pretend to have credentials, while denigrating my real, public ones.
The page is gone, and it’s a relief. My fans shouldn’t have to grovel, degrade, and humiliate themselves before a “consensus” of social failures to document that a best-selling, award-winning author with over 20 publications and 100 editions in 3 languages is more culturally relevant than a disgusting freak who was f***** to death by a horse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumclaw_horse_sex_case
I think I last checked in on the page in 2015. On my list of priorities, if #1 is sex with my wife and our girlfriend, and it is, taking my daughter to the museum is about #3, writing my current contracts is #5, showering and wiping my ass is about #12, pulling out the stove to scrape the congealed grease is #57, identifying that weird tree way up the hill on the fence line is #348, and giving a shit about some page argued over by fat, angry, pompous failures is approximately #4,762,051.
The fact is, Wikipee is irrelevant, and my sales and credentials do not depend on it for either existence or credibility. A simple google search finds me, and you can get direct info without “consensus.”
So let them lovingly maintain the article about the guy who was f***** to death by a horse. Because if that’s the cost of notability, I’m happy not to be listed. Call me a prude. It tells me all I need to know about their organization.”