Wikipedia deleted Every Day Fiction. I understand they have some rules. As a former English professor who had students using Wikipedia as their source material, I understand that the site is trying hard to live down their reputation of not being a genuine place for academic research. I remember chalking on the board, “NO WIKIPEDIA!”

They still have a cloud hanging over them when it comes to hard research so I “get” their dedication to selectivity. However, I fail to see how research stringency affects Every Day Fiction. It is not a resource for term papers nor pretends to be. No student is going to use EDF as a source to take the easy way out of research. The need for citations, references, etc. just isn’t there for a fiction e-zine.

For e-zines, the powers that be at Wikipedia use the word “notable” to determine inclusion. Popularity matters not a whit since I’m pretty sure EDF has more hits than other e-zine in the Wiki index. They’ve been strict with EDF’s application. When is a mention in The Wall Street Journal not enough to make EDF notable? It’s very difficult for me to understand this situation.

It’s sad because Jordan Lapp, the editor of EDF, and Camille Gooderham Campbell are serious about creating a quality e-zine. They treat both the writers and readers with respect. They comment positively on each submission, give clues to why something is rejected, and support and encourage writers at all levels of development. They work hard to publish stories of high quality while remaining open-minded to subject matter and genre. Of course, I am prejudice. They’ve published four of my stories and selected three to appear in the upcoming Best of Every Day Fiction anthology. I am proud of this. I’ve seen pages of it and it is beautifully done. I owe much of my newly-found confidence to them and the readers at EDF.

They are professionals and their enterprise will thrive, an article in Wikipedia notwithstanding.