Dutch Wikipedia's resident egomaniac, Marcel Douwe Dekker

This one was passed along by Wikipedia Sucks! messageboard member Graaf Statler, who has had a long history with nl.Wikipedia and Wikimedia Nederland and is happy with neither.

Marcel Douwe Dekker (user name: Mdd) is a "systems engineer, conceptual artist, designer and author" from the Netherlands who has been using Dutch Wikipedia to promote himself since 2004. Here is his translated nl.Wikipedia personal page, and his Wikimedia Commons page, which is a collection of photographs he is either in or photographs of his friends and "colleagues" (more on that later), or snapshots of his design work. The Commons moderators are discussing right this moment whether or not to delete Dekker's page.

Here we see the massive tag warning the viewer that, yes, they want to junk this page, which, if you understand the history of Wikimedia Commons is both the most hypocritical thing they have ever wanted done and yet the most reasonable at the same time.

Above, the man himself, as photographed in 2015. This is the most recent photograph of him on Commons. The largeness of it should appeal to him.

A cropped photo of another one that exists on the same page (!), but proof he had a beard back in 1994, when he was involved in the '90s Dutch design movement.

 One of the things he designed back in 1992, a bookcase that incorporates the Dutch word "kast" which means "bookcase." He started using this idea in art displays.

He found a box full of motor scooter headlamps and he started using them in art projects. The spider ashtray (top photo) went nowhere, but the Spider Light was good enough to make multiple units for a German industrial design show in 1998. I have no idea if somebody in Holland or Germany mass-manufactured these things; if you do know, pass it along in the comments.

Besides the purely physical items Mdd has also done "conceptual model" drawings as seen above. I would say they are slightly hacky in that he keeps on using the same drawing of the man and the cityscape in all of them, unless this is part of a series. The one on the bottom is for a cybernetic factory from Stafford Beer's 1959 book Cybernetics and Management.

The rest of his Commons page are photographs of fellow artists and anybody notable in Holland. The man looking like a deer caught in the headlights is Peter G.M. van der Heijden, professor of Statistics at Utrecht University, as seen in 2009. This photo is used for his nl.Wikipedia BLP, so if they delete Dekker's Commons page, the photo might vanish, because Marcel Douwe Dekker used many portrait photos in many Dutch BLPs, because he had taken photos of a large number of people in Dutch art, design, and academia since the 1980s. He has made himself indispensable in a minor way.


Beyond Commons

In order to promote himself beyond Dutch Wikipedia, he wrote or translated his own biography and stuck it in the English-language Wikipedia and it was yanked in 2012. The best bits from that Article for Deletion argument (all typos retained):



Page has been created by Marcel Douwe Dekker himself, who is also a Wikipedia user (Mdd): User:Mdd/Marcel Douwe Dekker, and was copied to the main name space by a colleague WP user from the Netherlands. A similar page was placed on Wikipedia Netherlands before (twice) and has been deleted for reasons of lack of notability: [1]
A similar page was placed on Wikiquote Netherlands before and was deleted there for the same reasons, and because Mdd refused to let others edit "his" page. It was recently restored at his request as he says he needs access to the edit history to "build a case". It is still marked "AfD": [2] _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 19:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What should be considered here, is if Marcel Douwe Dekker is 'notable' enough, I think we all agree on that. Judging from the references mentioned in the article, and the expositions held, I am inclined to say he is indeed notable enough. It is true that Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote the Dutch Wikipedia article himself, but it is also true that a small group of people monitor his every step to the point of harassing him. I'm not saying that Whaledad is one of them, but it seems clear to me that he made it his mission -across wiki- to erase all traces of Marcel Douwe Dekker. I find this very disturbing. Considerations other than encyclopedic relevance should not be taken into account, as we all (should) know. So, judge wisely, without prejudice and without bias, and if a majority of users finds it fails the notability guidelines, so be it. My vote is to keep it. Beachcomber (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

From 1994 on he has been developing his own philosophy and theory about Civilization and Science! Three cheers for Marcel Douwe Dekker! His own philosophy about Civilazation and Science! I might suggest adding more capitals to this remarkable fact: From 1994 on He has been developing His Own Philosophy and Theory about Civilization and Science. Let's not be modest, Mdd! Humanity will be ever so greatful to you! RJB-nl (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, self promotion by author Marcel Douwe Dekker. Saschaporsche (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 

I know it is probably a typo, but Marcel Douwe Dekker wrote the Dutch Wikipedia himself... is exactly the kind of presumptuousness that leads to an article like this. Click the "find sources" links below the header of this section, and you will only find links to pages that Mdd filled himself. Four of the five references that support this article (Judging from the references mentioned in the article) are to his own home page, the fifth is his LinkedIn page, where you can see that his current "job" is Wikipedia editor, and where he has a recommendation from Hubert Hermans who thanks him for contributing in an excellent way, to the presentation of my work on the Dutch and English Wikipedia. Where his actual contributions to these articles are extremely minimal: NL: [3], [4], and [5]; EN: [6]. Misinterpretation or misrepresentation? You be the judge.

I fully agree with Mr. Beachcomber: the only thing that really matters here is notability. This should follow from relevant mentions of the person and his work in notable external sources. All that I've been able to find are mentions in his own sources.

By the way: I resent any suggestion from Mr. Beachcomber that I would be monitoring every step that Mdd makes. Note that even if I did, I would not have found out about the creation of this page, as it was not created by himself, but on his behalf. I just happened to stumble upon this page as I follow new page creation and significant changes in the "Dutch xyz" categories (I'm a former Dutchman). _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 01:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right about that: there never was a Wikipedia article about Marcel Douwe Dekker, just a redirect to his user page. I missed something there - the mentioning of a 'redirect' So, he never created an article about himself, and his notability was never questioned. This is a good thing, because now we can look at the newly created English page with a fresh eye. I could not help noticing however that up to now only Dutch Wikipedia users are giving their opinion, so I'm still waiting for the fresh eye approach. Beachcomber (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Beachcomber, how on earth could you expect a fresh eye approach on a subject that is a total nobody in Dutch design. There is no reason what so ever why Dutch mediocracy should be featured on en-Wiki, were it is - quite rightleously - not even featured at nl-Wiki. If winter comes can spring be far behind. RJB-nl (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's just wait and see what others decide, RJB. By the way, I urge you to stop posting derogatory comments about other contributors here. This page is strictly intended for discussion on articles nominated for deletion. The Wiki ghost (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should we want to wait what others decide, while we are alive and kicking ourselves? And why do you urge me to do something I already do? Where did I post derogatory comments about other contributors here? The only thing I did - and quite rightly so, I might add - is questioning the relevance of a Wikipedia lemma on a total nobody, who's - so we're supposed to think - spent the better part of his life developing his own philosophy and theory about Civilization and Science. I formerly believed that he spent his life sitting at least that part of the day that he was not photographing monkeys in the Rotterdam Zoo. I know - at least this is what he told us - that he also spent a lot of time discussing the pro's and con's of World Economy, with people who went on to become professors. Some of them even delivered key note speeches to the United Nations! It's a miracle, no less, that he even found time to develop his own philosophy about practilcy everything. But it is a miracle I tend not to believe. You - on the other hand - seem to do. Dream on, Wiki Gohst, and beware! RJB-nl (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  08:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Comment All the links on the article appear to be broken, which makes it very hard to see any evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Those were links to Mdd's personal website. I have edited the list at Marcel Douwe Dekker#Media coverage of his work. "Media" here includes a large number of exhibit catalogs and free local weekly news rags the likes. There is also coverage at "real" news media in the list, but note that that coverage always pertains to an entire exhibition that Mdd happened to be part of. He proudly lists where his spider or chicken lamp pictures were shown, and/or he was mentioned in 1 or 2 lines of text. I have actually found one of those articles in available archive, where it shows that the "award" that Mdd indicated was just an "honorable mention". In my mind none of this "coverage" makes Mdd notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 17:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Update: Mdd's own page on Wikiquote Netherlands (q:nl:Marcel Douwe Dekker) has again been removed for lack of notability. ([7]) _W^\|/_haledad (Talk to me) 20:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete Another sad autobio with strained cites to catalog mentions and so on. Why do people insist on embarassing themselves like this? EEng (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There was also the Dutch-WP Request page for Moderators/ Restore argument which will read wonky because it was run through machine-translation:


This article was removed in its entirety during the removal session, and I object to this. In removal discussion I already gave alternatives, which have not been responded to (other than with a cryptic statement). Against the nomination itself, this commentary almost literally had to be inserted, and I still wonder why that actually did not happen. I think the discussion itself is far below par. From consultations with the acting moderator here , important questions have not been asked before and motives and background have not been taken into account. I would appreciate it if the article were replaced, and then I welcome any further substantiated nomination on the article to further improve. - Mdd ( consultation ) 5 Jul 2018 09:45 (CEST)

Completely justified removal of shocking self-promotion. Peter b ( consultation ) 5 Jul 2018 10:57 (CEST)

Agree with Peter b. Vinvlugt ( consultation ) 5 Jul 2018 11:16 (CEST)

Relevance does not appear anywhere. There is virtually nothing to be found about him outside of his own blogs. BoH ( consultation ) 5 Jul 2018 12:12 (CEST)

Once, I was also quite surprised that the mod of service said that the relevance was not up for discussion. Why not? Vinvlugt ( consultation ) 5 Jul 2018 12:27 (CEST)

Because it was not specified as motivation for the nomination. - bdijkstra ( consultation ) 5 Jul 2018 12:34 (CEST)

A few newspapers have sometimes devoted a few lines to Mdd's artefacts, but this is what he makes of it himself (see here ): "In the 53 years of my life, I have been in the news for about 45 years of local to national and international sources. "
Those who do not shy away from such self-indulgence, which undoubtedly derives from a fear of anonymity and the associated desire for recognition, will never be able to write objectively about themselves. Marrakech ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 11:51 (CEST)

Marrakech, thanks for this citation. You see a pronounced judgment about that, but do you now feel that I have not spoken the truth? - Mdd ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 12:02 (CEST)

That's not what it's all about, but okay: have you really been in the news since your eighth thanks to your 'performances'? Marrakech ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 12:32 (CEST)

Yes, from the age of eight and with some regularity. The first publication in 1974 was about (partly) winning a national drawing competition, followed by a national exhibition in the RAI source . Twenty years later in 1994 I was back with my own work at the interior fair. At that time as a starting designer, that was quite a lot if you were allowed to exhibit there, comparable to the KunstRAI . - Mdd ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 12:54 (CEST)

More early publications up to and including 1976 can be found here, and later from 1987 here . Mind you, there are a number of articles about things that I was involved in, but not mentioned. - Mdd ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 13:18 (CEST)

For a moment clicking through, I came to this page , where you write under a photo from 1977: "It took fifteen years for the media to hear something of it again." Then the suggestion that you have been in the news for 43 years is a bit exaggerated.

You also write very disarmingly that reviews have long kept a 'magical experience' for you. Frankly, I think they still have that for you. The newspapers that usually only contain articles about people you might look up to, suddenly call your name, as a result of which you have become their equal, as it were. You can easily vote euphoric. But you should also see it in perspective. For do just few sentences in a few articles of a local newspaper really justify the claim that you have been 'in the news' since the age of eight? Marrakech ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 13:30 (CEST)

The border in all such cases always remains arbitrary to a certain extent. When was someone often enough in the media (newspapers, news, magazines, ...) to be definitively encyclopaedic? And could, for example, Eric Punt and René Cramer also qualify for their own WP articles in this way? Furthermore, the name of Marcel Douwe Dekker is occasionally mentioned by authors such as Eric Reiss , see [2] .

A little bit aside: for athletes, the lower limit generally seems to be a lot lower than for other professional groups such as musicians or - as in this case - visual artists. The Wikischim ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 14:07 (CEST)

@Marrakech, I think it should be 17 years old, and for the rest that is of course just a hiding story (on my website). Those few minor sentences justify that, but I would not write that in a Wikipedia article. Now the user space of the English Wikipedia also contains a trial version, see here . As it says there, the text around source 9 to 13, that would (I think) be possible. - Mdd ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 14:12 (CEST)

Marcel, you seem to have a big blind spot regarding yourself. That way you dare to put yourself in the shop window in a way that does not do you any good and even take a drawing contest on your 8th seriously. The image you put down of yourself, in the article and with your comments here, is that of an ambitious, enthusiastic person looking for recognition that is not done. The frustration spatters and what is left is not the image of a successful talent, but of a career that does not come from the ground. It's good that you can provide for your livelihood, but otherwise the picture will still be a bit sad. So I think you are doing yourself a favor by not continuing this. BoH ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 14:11 (CEST)

BoH, for that blind spot you can address a control group. - Mdd ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 15:01 (CEST)

Wonderful example of why self-promotion should remain strongly discouraged. Perhaps it can be stored in an anonymous way as a practical example of how bad it can derail in some people who write about themselves. But totally unsuitable to place in the article namespace. - Robot ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 14:19 (CEST)

Again for clarity: There is a previous neutral version (on WikiSage), in which I can restore the article. There has been local, regional, national and worldwide. In addition, depending on how you count, 100+ to 10,000+ primary sources are generated, and action and work in 100+ secondary sources have ended up from local, regional, national to international. That seems to me enough reason to put the article back. - Mdd ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 14:44 (CEST)

Note The version that I have read and commented was so contrary to the principles of Wikipedia, that deletion of the article was only logical. With these kinds of contributions, Wikipedia is by no means a good service, because it gives the impression that a loop may be taken with things like No original research and Neutral Viewpoint . Repositioning seems to me very undesirable. If the subject is really as relevant as Mdd claims then it is not much asked to take a step back and wait for someone willing to write an encyclopedic article about this Marcel Douwe Dekker based on independent reliable sources. . Gouwer( talk ) 6 Jul 2018 15:01 (CEST) You are now referring to an article on Wikisage. But that article certainly does not meet the aforementioned principles. It is a highly subjective piece with terms such as "according to his own words," and "what he calls". On which independent, reliable sources are "Youth and education", "Working on cooperation" and "Working on a coherent human image" based. Has a biographical article ever been written about him? Gouwenaar ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 15:01 (CEST)

Put the used arguments for removal at a glance: shocking self-promotion; relevance is nowhere apparent; outside his own blogs there is almost nothing to find about him; relevance was not under discussion. Why not; not afraid of such self-promotion; fear of anonymity ... and so on. What is all that necessary for ...!?

Why not just look at the encyclopaedia with each other ... That is always a relative concept, so we compare it with similar cases ... etc. Honest, open and reliable ... and then you can also determine whether someone will chance.

Now I know quite well that the detailed article contains a nice dose of original research according to Wikipedia standards. I have left it intuitively, because that also has a function. I also know that that is not even 5% of the text. You may be able to formulate something differently, and some things really can not. - Mdd ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 15:57 (CEST)

Dear Marcel, I think we can still give 300 megabytes of consultation, but you just refuse to see what the problem is: you will not be able to write a balanced article about yourself. Point, ready, finito. Wait until someone else finds you familiar enough to make an attempt. Vinvlugt ( consultations ) 6 Jul 2018 16:09 (CEST)

It is precisely those kinds of wild stories that make the problem worse. You participated as a 8-year-old kid in a drawing contest with some other children from Heemskerk and three of those children from Heemskerk, among whom you are mentioned by name in a local newspaper or something like that. And from that entry you have been in the news for 45 years. What a pathetic thing. My birth even made it to the local newspaper because all the births and deaths of my birthplace were collected in the newspaper every week. In the meantime, there seems to be enough consensus that replacing is undesirable. Too bad for you, but for Wikipedia. - Robotje ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 16:25 (CEST)

I think it's fine if we let the community decide on this. Then I would like to hold a poll. - Mdd ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 16:41 (CEST)

Why do you find yourself relevant? BoH ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 16:44 (CEST)

Before I forget: this Marcel Dekker certainly deserves his own article. Many well-known radio presenters, some of whom have been in the profession for a long time, are still not described on Wikipedia. It is quite a lot if their name is mentioned here somewhere in an article about eg a program. This while perhaps half of all Dutch speakers have heard them on the radio. The Wikischim ( consultation ) 6 Jul 2018 16:24 (CEST)

• Not implemented to begin with, I would like to express my great appreciation for the many work that Mdd has done in the main namespace. I believe that every participant in this discussion - including Mdd itself - agrees that the article in the current form does not suffice. There are therefore few words to be spent on that. Then the question remains, is it expedient to replace another version of this article? No. Relevance appears from independent and authoritative sources that describe a subject in a way that transcends the trivial. The existence of such sources has not been made plausible. Of course, mentioning a subject is not described under the heading. I understand that Mdd's decision is a complete disappointment, but I can not make anything more beautiful.Nature12 ( consultations ) 7 Jul 2018 18:11 (CEST)
  • Thanks for the compliment, and that great appreciation is mutual. I know that the work on Wikipedia can not have a name, and as a foreman in the first "war on Wikipedia" certainly not at all. Relevance is apparent from performance, presentation and representation, and that is diffuse in this case: drawing, chess, rowing, science, photography, design, art, organization and Wikipedia. Time and time again from regional and semi-national to now a second time globally, and then again restless. Relevance also appears from the people with whom you do things, share experiences, and follow your way. So be it. - Mdd ( consultation ) 7 Jul 2018 21:53 (CEST)
  • This disapproval speaks of authoritative sources that describe a topic in a way that transcends the trivial, but who says there are not any? Jaap Huisman in the Volkskrant, the review in Items, the honorable mention at the Dutch furniture price with all the press, the exhibition in the Hague Art Circle with all the press, three year presentation at the largest international interior design exhibitions worldwide, witnesses WIND publication, Monica Moonen in the NRC , the Youth News. And do not forget the Humo (2012) with the slogan "war on Wikipedia" ... Those were all iconic images time. Take Jeugdjournaal on the first drive-in art in the Netherlands with a news flash, which ends with a picture of my Sunflower ...!? This settlement provides a standard, but does not test whether these standards shall not be met. With that kind of decision Wikipedia loses a little credibility. The proposed survey covered both the content and the discussion, and now can handle also be involved. - Mdd ( consultation ) Jul 8, 2018 04:36 (IST)

I think everything has been said here. The bearing is not recommended on good grounds, but can be done by putting the Mdd nevertheless. Let's wait and see. BoH ( consultation ) Jul 8, 2018 12:23 (IST)

The opening sentence of Wikipedia: Opinion poll is: " An opinion poll on the Dutch Wikipedia is meant to find out whether there is a clear majority for a position in an initial lack of consensus. " It seems to me that there is a reasonable consensus that undesirable. If you think that you can convince enough people at a poll to include your drawing talent (at the age of 8 in the local suffix, your name with two children from Heemskerk because of a drawing contest) E is enough, then try you name it. Seems pretty masochistic to me. The support of your Wikisage buddy seems already inside. So if only the two of you cast a 'vote', it can become something else. -Robot( consultations ) 8 Jul 2018 14:27 (CEST)

• A poll seems in this case an excellent way to involve more people without putting too much burden on them. It can settle ten years of fraternity and be the beginning of a more positivist editorial board and board on the Dutch Wikipedia and Wikiquote. After six years of suspiciousness towards Wikiquote, the past vote was the first good news in years. Whoever thinks that it is not related to the other, I ask to be patient. The holiday is coming and this will take some time. - Mdd ( consultation ) 10 Jul 2018 15:49 (CEST)

I do not know what mood you mean, but you are free to organize a poll or vote. Is it really specifically about whether the community sees an article about you? I would just find a decent tax, but of course that is my opinion. Enjoy your holiday! Vinvlugt ( consultation ) 10 Jul 2018 16:04 (CEST)

A poll only makes sense if the result can not be predicted. In this case there will almost certainly be no consensus for the article, and there will most likely be a consensus that the article is undesirable. - Zanaq ( ? ) 10 Jul 2018 18:15 (CEST)

Mdd, I strongly advise you not to start that poll. People are not going to judge the article but you as a person and that can lead to more controversy that you think you are going to solve with the poll. You are also talking about a Wikipedia board ... I do not know which editor or board you think there is, but there is no central editor or board on Wikipedia. The article about you has nothing to do with that. Dqfn13 ( consultation ) 10 Jul 2018 18:27 (CEST)

• @ Peter b : @ Vinvlugt : @ BoH : @ Bdijkstra : @ Marrakech : @ The Wikischim : @ Robotje : @ Gouwenaar : @ Nature12 : @ Marrakech : @ Trewal : @ Lidewij C J . :, @ Zanaq:, @ Dqfn13 : and other interested parties . Is it an idea, say a compromise, that I will soon start a new article in its own user space from the base, and then leave (a part of) that poll? - Mdd ( consultation ) 11 Jul 2018 15:00 (CEST)

No. As I have already said, your relevance does not appear anywhere. You become irrelevant due to a drawing competition, some quotes in a newspaper and a few designs. If you want to organize a poll and with that your own Jan Roos experience , go ahead. BoH ( consultation ) 11 Jul 2018 15:10 (CEST)

BoH, you might want the Roos Vonk experience. - Mdd ( consultation ) 14 Jul 2018 03:49 (CEST)

Dear Mdd, I join BoH. I am not convinced that there are enough independent sources that prove your e-dignity. Vinvlugt ( consultation ) 11 Jul 2018 15:14 (CEST)

Step 1 for you does not seem to make me a start but make you E. Win the New York marathon, be elected as a Senate member, make sure that a Nobel Prize wins, something like that. If you really want an article about yourself on nl-wiki, it is not enough to end up at the best 25 in the drawing competition organized by an embassy. Also not in combination with moderator at a Wikimedia project. - Robotje ( consultation ) 11 Jul 2018 16:00 (CEST)

What was not clear about the advice given by me? If the subject is really as relevant as Mdd claims then it is not much asked to take a step back and wait for someone to be prepared on the basis of independent reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article about this Marcel Douwe Dekker . Gouwenaar ( consultation ) 11 Jul 2018 16:07 (CEST)

Unbelievable MDD. he can sing this, maybe that helps . Saschaporsche ( consultation ) 11 Jul 2018 16:20 (CEST)

There is a reason why people here on Wikipedia almost daily advise someone not to write about themselves or a subject that they are closely involved with: people think the subject is more relevant than people who experience it remotely. Keep it when describing topics that you are not involved in, you did well because you have enough emotional distance. I also do not write about subjects that I am involved in (diabetes mellitus, autism, etc) because I can not write enough about it, or too quickly consider things relevant while the community experiences it more as trivial. Dqfn13 ( consultation ) 11 Jul 2018 20:15 (CEST)

So the Commons pages are all that is left of Mdd after fourteen years of involvement with nl.Wikipedia. It should be noted the nl.Wikipedia has removed a Marcel Douwe Dekker article three times, twice on the 6th of March, 2007 and once on the 2nd of this July, so we can't say that he hasn't really tried to use Wikipedia for self-promotion.

Obligatory Conclusion

It's hard to be notable by normal press standards, and the wonky worldview of Wikipedia editors overlooks scads of people (look at this list started by Eric Barbour, there is no excuse why any of them should not at least have a stub article.) After running this blog for nearly five years, I've come to the conclusion that anybody involved with editing/moderating Wikipedia who isn't also commenting on one of the three criticism boards (ours, Billy Burns', or Auggie's) is a hack, who is either too self-unaware of all the holes in the system, or going through the motions because it's a habit now, or a true believer despite everything. Marcel Douwe Dekker took this crappy system for well-deserved ride; after all, nobody except for the paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation gets anything tangible out of all of their Wikipedia work. Mdd said screw it, if non-entities like Jedward or the Intentionally blank page can have a page, why not me? If Wikipedia is supposed to be all-inclusive, as some people involved with it early on thought it should be, then why shouldn't Dekker have a stub article?


(Postscript: It has been pointed out on Reddit that Dekker has an en.Wikipedia user page, which means he has a lifeboat when Dutch Wikipedia/Wikimedia dumps him.)