• Death_Equity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    2 months ago

    You could try to get Jodie Foster to notice you in some newsworthy way.

    You could assassinate Putin, you would even get a statue and a park in your name.

    Start a band and do that until you get on the billboards, do an interview and casually eat leftovers out of a Tupperware while wearing a possum costume with a sash that says “John Locke was right” and refuse to elaborate.

    Liberate East Timor.

    End global climate change.

    Become a YouTube sensation with your Vlogs detailing every load of laundry you do while singing dubstep remixes of Chinese translated Yugoslavian nursery rhymes.

    Invade tik-tok with clips of you screaming at inanimate objects with googley eyes on them, they aren’t even your real father.

  • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is an interesting question but it also made me ponder something related. It makes sense for Wikipedia to focus on only notable people, but why not create a WikePeople or something that aims to be comprehensive about every person we can find information on? Or does something like this exist already?

      • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Right but I was thinking with a similar rigor and citation system as with Wikipedia. So it’s pretty different in practice.

        • Boozilla@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 months ago

          I see what you mean, I think. It would be convenient to be able to look people up in a modern equivalent of “Who’s Who” in a central location, instead of trying to find people scattered all over the web. However, I wouldn’t want to be on there myself, and would worry employers would make it mandatory. Some employers already reject candidates for having no social media.

          • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            A valid concern. I was more thinking it would be interesting if to have a comprehensive biographical database for people who have died. That way they won’t be forgotten as most people of the past have been. But I’m not sure how to create that without violating the privacy of the living.

    • jeffw@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      Wikipedia nerds are way too obsessive. They’ll delete it unless the person is noteworthy

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    You know every Wikipedia user has a user page(s) they can put whatever they like on? It’s not in the article namespace, but if you just want to put info about yourself somewhere on Wikipedia that’s the easiest way.

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Worth noting, however, that there are also rules on using one’s user page as a promotional piece. It’s much more loose obviously than the criteria for what goes in an article, but you absolutely will get smacked if you use your user page exclusively for advertising.

  • Don_Dickle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    UIm I guess message the mods to let you become a poster or whatever and just write the living shit out of yourself. Then use words that link to others and boom you are golden.

  • Donebrach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Time was you could just post one, but then all the teachers had to be like “Wikipedia isn’t a source” so society decided to say “fuck you, teach.”