“Wikipedia : the free encyclopedy that anyone can edit”.

I’m sorry to contradict you Mister Wikipedia, but things are a little bit more complicated… Indeed, despite our motivation and willingness to contribute to the universal knowledge, there are thousands of obstacles to curb, slow down or even to prevent the publication of our text.

Wikipedia expects its user to write an article about something which diserves a certain fame without promoting it, by furnishing precise pieces of information and giving its sources. I tried to answer to these rules in order to write an article about Krystle Warren, an American young musician who is very talented. But because I didn’t post the different links of the websites thanks to which I wrote this text and  because Krystle Warren is not very known yet, my article was rejected.

If I was quite hurt by this suppression, I think the complexity of the process is clearly representative of the unlimited ambition of Wikipedia. Actually, if a website pretends to become our on-line encyclopedy, there are many traps it should avoid such as : desinformation, desguised publicity and so on. In fact, with such a good referencement, Wikipedia cannot take the risk to publish “anyone” as it pretends to.

However, it should work on its communication with its users  by acting with more transparency, by explaining to its users why their article hasn’t been published and why it didn’t answer to their request. Because after all, knowing and learning implies sharing and communicating with others.