It happened – and I can’t say I’m surprised. I visited the ASMR Wikipedia page just the other day and saw that it had been deleted. We gave it a shot, trying to keep it up, and despite the somewhat malicious opinions of some of the editors (calling those defending the page “meatpuppets” or “sockpuppets”) we have to ignore them and focus on the bigger picture.
When they say that there’s no hard scientific evidence to support the claims on the page, they’re probably right. We have one video trial with results unpublished to the public so far, and we have a long way to go with our own research efforts before we can really say we have something.
When they say that there needs to be more third party references and not just original ones, they’re right again. All we have as far as references go is the article by Mason, and the radio interview on KRBZ – not really sufficient, at least in their eyes.
I’m not trying to put the community or the research team down, or say that we were wrong in trying to keep it up, or putting it up in the first place. We thank you for sticking around and supporting this movement; this project. But while I am sad to see the page taken down, I can look beyond some rather tactless comments made by a handful of people who may or may not be experiencers themselves, and understand why the page was taken down. There were valid reasons behind it, and despite our best efforts to save it, it’s gone. Maybe not forever, but for now, in any case.
This isn’t the end. Like Envelope was saying, we can try and publish it under another category – but I don’t think we should, because then the same thing will probably happen. After a short while, and with much debate, the page will be taken down again, because it doesn’t meet the necessary requirements. It would be a waste of time and effort. There’s no real getting around that until we have the scientific evidence and the third party references and such to meet said specifications. In case you didn’t know, Wikipedia has strict content guidelines, and for a reason. Wikipedia all ready battles as it is to be taken seriously as a proper source of information itself, with many lecturers and so on the world over not accepting any articles from the website as legitimate references in papers submitted by learners.
I have backed up a more recent copy of the content that was on the page (perhaps as recent as a week ago or so, although if you want the latest version you’ll have to contact a listed administrator), and Wikipedia itself suggests that if your page is taken down, you can try another wiki, or even create your own and host it on your own site. And I think even though it might not rank as highly in search engines as an article on Wikipedia, we have to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn’t the only sort of Wiki, and it might have limitations which we can overcome on another site. Like I was saying before, unlike with Wikipedia, we can have an entire wiki dedicated to our beloved phenomenon, with many pages – and the whole community can contribute to it, without the fear of the page being deleted. We would likely still moderate it to protect it from vandalism and spamming, etc.
So I’m going to talk this over with Envelope and see where we can go. I will kindly ask you, the community, to not start a wiki anywhere on the web. Leave that up to us, to select a good place for it and then we will tell you when the main page is up and it’s open for business. As I understand it, a so far unknown individual went and put the original ASMR page up on Wikipedia without consulting anyone else about it. I know that some people within the community were pushing for a Wikipedia page in the past, but we had our reasons why we didn’t want to put it up on said site, and perhaps we were wrong in keeping quiet about it. The recent deletion of the page is one of the reasons.
Please don’t republish the page on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future under any category, as the community and network at large will only likely get a bad reputation, any accounts linked to editing the page might be deleted, and any websites within the network, listed as references, may be blacklisted by Wikipedia. It might seem unfair to some, but we have to be mature and look at it from their point of view as well.
I apologise to any of you who thought that I was expressing any other sort of attitude in my previous post on the situation. It’s just that while there was a debate, and perhaps there were “loopholes” as were suggested by some, in the end, the administrator who deleted the page was correct in saying that it’s not about votes that determines whether a page lives or dies, but it’s about reasoning and following the guidelines. If the article had followed said established guidelines, it probably wouldn’t have been deleted. Once again, I’m not blaming anybody here.
Thanks for bearing with us, and we appreciate your patience as we try to find another home for the wiki, and we will of course notify you when it’s up and running, and you are more than welcome to contribute to it in the near future.