Wiki-Wiki-Wow-Wow

I crammed and jammed on a quickie wiki today at the part-time writing gig.

Normally I enjoy a good quickie, but this one was particularly stressful. Yet, I was so proud of myself for pulling something together on short notice, and I was very careful to comply with Wikipedia's strict standards.

Yes, my friends, Wikipedia has standards. I know it seems hard to believe but they won't let any old trash post on this site. It is user driven but informational, verging on educational, in nature.

When I was finished, I was pretty pleased with my final product. It was informational, not advetorial and complied with all of our brand standards.

So imagine my surprise when I hit the page this evening only to find it FLAGGED for speedy deletion. Holy shit. I expected some concerns because the information was pulled directly from our site. Possible copyright infringement if we didn't own the data.

But what ticked me off was the addition of a peacock flag: This article or section may contain peacock terms: wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information.

Real information? Other than our own Web site, there is very little about our association in the e-world. So adding a Wikipedia will further encourage proliferation. Yes, all the facts in my little entry are ours, but damnit, they are real.

Viva La Wiki!

Post Script: Bastards deleted it. Back to the pen.

Post Post Script: And blocked my username so I can't add anything again. Great. This is shaping up to be a real pain.

Beans, beans, the musical fruit

I’m finishing up my research for my green perspective article. I still struggle with how to package the information. Green individual? Given. Green business? More difficult. Green living? Possible. Will green save the Earth? Who the hell knows. That data seems to be missing. Or I’m not performing the correct Yahoo searches.

So I try again. I type “green” in the search bar. Before I even finish the word, Yahoo is already listing possible matches. The top three: Green Day (nice!), Green Bay Packers (puke) and Green Bean Casserole. What the hell?

Now I have new questions. Are green bean casseroles that thoroughly researched? Who wants to know? And why?

Did you know that a green bean casserole is the ultimate holiday side dish? It’s one of the most requested family favorites for Thanksgiving.

In 2005, this savory dish – sometimes served with crispy onions atop – celebrated 50 years of gracing the dinner table.

The two most important ingredients: green beans, cream of mushroom soup. Some of the most common additional ingredients: rice, chicken and cheese.

One serving of green bean casserole (a mere 1/2 cup) has 7 grams of fat, 4 grams of sugar, 130 calories and 730 mg of sodium. The average casserole serves 12, but most people eat three to five servings without realizing it.

To burn the calories from one small serving of green bean casserole, you could walk for 36 minutes, jog for 15, swim for 11 minutes or ride a stationary bike for 20 minutes.

In seven minutes of yahoo searches, I have learned more about green bean casserole than a whole morning of searching for stats on how environmental measures impact the health of the planet.

In fact, the closest thing I found was a game, hosted by Starbucks ironically, that features environmental choices and how your decisions impact a fictional planet.

Our planet – on the other hand – is apparently not as important as our love for green bean casserole. Thankfully Thanksgiving is not in any danger!