So, like, when I got here to Sactown Royalty, I got a less than welcome reception. My first entry was a diary (back when these were called that) of the loosest sort; a stream of consciousness from the arena after a harrowing night when we hosted the Golden State Warriors and approximately half an Arco's worth of obnoxious, running-heavy GSW worth of fans.
Somone soon made the linkage to my persona here to that over at Wikipedia. I had, in fact, discovered StR trying to track down whoever was douching up Grant's wiki page with annoying tenacity. Any joke is funny once and while some jokes do indeed get funnier the more you hear them, I wasn't really seeing the point of the ongoing joke.
I take an interest in keeping up Grant's page in particular as these past few years I have been a pretty loyal fan of both the Kings and of NBA basketball. As *announcers* go, Grant is really not all that bad. Much of the animosity towards him I think comes from his style during his call in show. Its like two different Grants almost, and you can find any measure in cheese in either one .
This being said, I think Grant does indeed deserve an article. Someone had in a standing request for an article on Jim Kozimor which I thought was kind of cool 'cause here was someone I knew a little about, could do some easy research and chip one of the first notches in my Wikipedia belt: a new article. I noticed Grant didn't have a page either and it didn't seem fair that he was the only brodcaster except maybe Angela Tsai not to have a page.
Anyway, somewhere along the way I discovered that there are a lot of damned rules on creating biographical pages, especially when the person is living and liable to have lawyers on active duty to uphold their reputations.
I generall find Wikipedia a worthwhile project despite this. Certainly its the sort of thing I wish I'd had when I was younger and could have absorbed a lot more. Sadly, its strength -- user participation -- means that it is a resource that is out in the open commons. If someone wants to spraypaint "GRANTS TESTTTTICLES RESEMBLE LARGE STONE FRUIT" on the front of a page, it reduces everything attached to it.
Is that the sort of worthwhile resource I want my children to use? No. So when I see trash, I pick it up.
Part two is the less than warm reception I received when I started here. I had one user dogging me around the site asking if I was a parody account and then asking more directly in a thread whether I was -- their words -- the "nazi" involved with cleanup. A janitor nazi.
To me, this was pretty offensive: The Nazi's killed a lot of jews, gypsies, dissenters, artists, poets, basketball players, homosexuals, guys who didn't bathe enough, not to mention Anne Frank (reason enough). There are people who still think nazism is great; this town has its own "red and white" group to this day. So, anyways, fighting words, especially when I was trying to keep up the common resource.
Someone else has noticed the melee there and shut things down for a while -- good for him for doing so. It allows me time to share my peace on the matter.
Grant's page should always be as fair, impartial and libel-free as possible. For living people, the standard is pretty high -- any claim must be documentable. I'd hoped that Ziller's interview with him had been a little less combative and I'd love to find someone in print (old Marty Mac maybe?) who came out and directly pointed out Grant's shortcomings on the radio or on TV. Commentary in his balls is not germaine (and why are you guys anti-testicle, anyways?)
Blog commentary doesn't have enough weight typically but Ziller's interview qualified as original research and therefore was citeable if it had contained more meat. I think TZ should get some documentation on this Napes-Koz feud. Up and at 'er. I greatly enjoy's Tom's contributions to our developing knowledge -- I've seen some amazing stuff over the past few months and will be interested to see how things develop as the season approaches.