Wikipedia: a strange case of the disappearing entry.

On two occasions, over the past couple of years, someone, unknown to me, has gone to all the trouble of listing Ainan Celeste Cawley, my son, in the "list of child prodigies" on Wikipedia. On both occasions, he was listed under "Chemistry". Now, he certainly qualifies for such a listing - yet, something odd happened to that listing on both occasions: it disappeared.

I have watched this saga of Wikipedia with some amusement. You see whatever ends up on Wikipedia reflects the workings of many anonymous contributors. Clearly, there are contributors out there who would like to see Ainan listed. However, also clearly, there is someone out there who keeps taking his listing down. What is most curious about this is that by the criteria of entry, Ainan's listing should definitely remain. However, someone doesn't wish this criteria to be obeyed. On the first occasion, a query was raised that references should be provided for the statements made. Now, I could have provided the references but for two reasons: firstly, I don't care either way, whether there is, in fact, a listing - and two: I don't know how to use Wikipedia, so I am not in a position to contribute any information, without the probably not inconsequential labour of finding out how it works.

So, the first time, I sat by and watched whilst no-one provided the references requested - even though Google provided them, immediately, at one search of his name. In due course, his listing was deleted - probably for lack of such references, I assumed (though anyone who had deleted it did so negligently, since they didn't even use Google to check whether the references were out there: a single search would have answered them.)

The second time Wikipedia listed Ainan was over the past few days. This time, however, someone provided a full reference to the statement claimed. Yet, rather inexplicably, the listing was deleted again - even with the reference (a media source). This, I find most revealing. Someone, somewhere, clearly doesn't want him to be listed - even if the statements are sourced and properly referenced. That, it would seem to me, goes against the spirit on which Wikipedia is built.

Yet, I don't mind. If there is someone out there, who finds it necessary to go to all the trouble of deleting Ainan's Wikipedia entry, every time someone puts one up - then I really don't care. You see, whether or not there is such an entry doesn't change anything about Ainan's life - or mine. Nor does it make it any harder to find out about him: Google has seen to that.

However, it is a bit sad, that anyone would actually go to all that trouble, each time he is mentioned - especially since he has met the criteria for entry these past three years. I can't imagine myself deleting information on someone I didn't know, for reasons that couldn't objectively be justified. It all seems a bit strange.

So, if you have arrived on this page looking for Ainan's Wikipedia entry - he probably doesn't have one - not because no-one has ever started one, but because someone doesn't want it to exist. Why not read this blog instead?

Thank you.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, or his gifted brothers, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm/3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)

Are gifted children offensive?

"Are gifted children too offensive?" These were the search words of a net searcher from Australia, a few days ago. In itself, it was one of the most offensive searches I have seen in a long time.

Australia is a country that has coined a phrase called the "tall poppies syndrome". This expresses the observation that, in certain quarters of the country, it has been traditional to cut down the "tall poppies". That means to attack the gifted among them. I understand that this is not the universal treatment of the gifted in Australia - for there are some programmes that address their needs - but the very fact that a culture actually has a phrase for this phenomenon is not actually a good sign - except of one thing, of course: that the society is open enough about its own nature to actually have labelled the situation. That, at least, is a step forward. In some societies, there is no name for it - but they do it anyway.

Clearly, though, this tendency still exists in Australia - otherwise the searcher above would never have searched as they have.

Let us look at what the searcher is actually saying. They are saying that gifted people offend them. How could this be? How can the possession of merit be, in any way, offensive? Only dark emotions could lead someone to be offended by giftedness. Jealousy, envy, spite and rage - these emotions are the ones that lead someone to be offended by the gifted. The question is which is more beneficial for society: giftedness - or jealousy, envy, spite and rage? Which do we want to encourage? Do we want to encourage the gifted in our society - or do we want to encourage those filled with dark emotions? Only one choice leads to a better world.

We all need to understand what is happening with regards to the gifted - how they are welcomed and how they are not. It is an issue for us all - because a society that enables its most gifted to flourish is a society that will flourish as a whole. Anyone who fails to see that, is unable to see the big picture. It should matter to all of us, if the gifted are not nurtured - for in failing to do so, the society as a whole is being undermined. Societies that do not nurture their gifted will inevitably fail to thrive. That is obvious.

(If you would like to read about Ainan Celeste Cawley, a scientific child prodigy, aged seven years and seven months, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, four years and no months, or Tiarnan seventeen months, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html I also write of gifted education, IQ, intelligence, child prodigy, child genius, baby genius, adult genius, savant, the creatively gifted, gifted children and gifted adults, in general. Thanks.)