Allison Stokke's Wikipedia Entry Keeps Getting Deleted

A girl was catapulted onto the national stage because she looks good in photos, and now all she wants is for people to respect her privacy. Yes, her parents made a mistake going to the media about it, but this is about her privacy not theirs. Wikipedia is doing the right thing. Freedom of speech doesn't mean we have to ignore people's feelings and publish things just because we can. Blogs are going through an awkward stage in their development where bloggers don't quite understand the real effects of their words. I wouldn't be surprised or worried about seeing an Wikipedia entry on her in a year, but good for them for not letting one up now.

Reply

I will say that I hadn't seen that the OC register is selling things with her face on it. Under California Civil Code § 3344 "Any person who knowingly uses another's ... likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling... without such person's prior consent...shall be liable for any damages." Either she consented to it or they're going to have to pay through the nose. So maybe this was just a publicity stunt on Stokke's behalf, but if that's true it's more reason to make her story go away.

Reply

nganassim, the OC Register's web site allows you to buy "any photo" that belongs to them. Which lumps her into this as they took a picture of her, or acquired one for reprint.

Expect it to go away, after someone buys a fathear wall poster of her.

Reply

For a full discussion on the matter by Wikipedia administrators, follow this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Allison_Stokke

Jack

Reply

You're comparing Wiki coverage of a notorious mass murderer to a teenage amateur athlete in an esoteric sport whose only claim to fame is that she happens to be cute? I know what you were trying to say, but think the analogy is a bit of a stretch.

Reply

Sure, Allison Stokke is *exactly* like Jeffrey Dahmer. And just as it does Dahmer no harm to document that he is a serial killer identified in numerous books on notable serial killers, it does Stokke no harm to document that a bunch of one-handed typists come over their keyboards whenever they see a picture of her. Because in both cases, this is what defines them as human beings, right? Dahmer is a serial killer, Stokke is primarily a lust object. Dahmer chose to kill, Stokke chose to look hot. Dahmer chose a life of abuse and murder, Stokke chose a life of being drooled over by guys who can't get a girlfriend.

Oh, hang on, that doesn't sound quite right, does it?

Reply

Stokke's picture was posted by a sports blog. Internet lurkers with no potential for romance made her a sex symbol. She wants privacy. We have the responsibility to do no harm. And right now, we're doing harm.

Reply

Why is no one mentioning the fact that Allison Stokke's father, Allan Stokke, is a prominent lawyer who defends child abusers? I find it shockingly ironic that he states in The Washington Post article about how upset he is, but, while defending a convicted felon who abused 13 year-old boys, stated "Where was she when I was 13?" However, he has a problem with his 18-year old daughter receiving the attention from the exact same kind of people with whom he identifies himself.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/atoz/article_937056.php

Reply

Hear hear Michael!

Reply

Anonymous: no one has mentioned it because while the father may be a low-life, this isn't about him. This is about a girl's right to her privacy.

Reply

Maybe you should read the rest of BLP and Notability also.... You might not agree with why the entry was deleted and is undergoing deletion review, but it's not hard to figure out why the deletion occurred.

Oh, and no, the Washington Post is not a fringe internet phenomenon. Stokke's current level of notability is primarily due to a fringe internet phenomenon. Will anybody remember this little incident five years from now? One year from now? No? Then what's your problem? Encyclopedias are not for "here today, gone tomorrow" things.

Reply

"Famous" is not necessarily the same thing "notable." Wikipedia is distributed curatorialship, not populism. It is not a "free for all" and it is not "anything goes."

Reply

well, wikipedia does have an entry for "internet phenomenon". I think this is what is most amazing about this whole thing. I think this is something that is going to happen more often, not less. So "who will be the next Allison Stokke" is an appropriate question.

Reply

Up to 9 months ago we financially contributed funds to Wikipedia but no more, for we thought that it was a good idea and where its thinking was in unison with our own at that time - using knowledge for the good of humankind. When we as novices tried to place our Swiss charity within Wikipedia we were absolutely savaged by the editors. They in fact blocked our right of reply, which is documented by themselves.
Thereafter we even sent our registration documents via email to the then executive director of Wikimedia, the holding organization, to prove that our international group was registered as a Swiss charity. He did nothing at all. A few months later he resigned with another top Wikimedia executive, 'Jimbo's second in command. The greatest problem with Wikipedia that we now find is that they are highly selective in who should place information and where therefore they will never really have a web-based encyclopaedia that is unbiased and totally factual. It is ultimately at the whims of the few enlightened ones who control what should be a great reference. Unfortunately we now see that it is not.

For anyone interested further on how Wikipedia editors work, the full account including all emails will be part of our next web newsletter 'Scientific Discovery'. It will be on-line by the end of July 2007. Overall, it is time we feel that Wikipedia looked internally at itself and that they concluded that they have major problems with the way they treat new entrants. This analysis should especially be directed towards the attitude of their editors, who remove the right of reply and delete super-quick for reasons not based on evidence but only hearsay. By the way also, the Wikipedian Editor Zoe who first blocked us and the initial instigator of all the basic trouble, fell out with 'Jimbo' and where she as well left a few months later. Apparently she had made a vendetta against a certain professor according to 'Jimbo's' opinion. Thereafter she took her bat and ball home and has never been seen since. I believe she also threatened the embattled professor at the time - the web link is http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:dUfUXyA24wwJ:www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Zoe+zoe+wikipedia+professor+change+wikipedia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=uk.


Dr. David Hill
Chief Executive
World Innovation Foundation Charity (reg. no. CH-035.7.035.277-9 - 11th July 2005)
Bern, Switzerland

Reply