I'm not sure this is a gender issue so much as an inherent weakness in
notability as a standard for inclusion. Notability, by its nature,
reflects how well known something or someone is in society. In this
case, pop culture provides limited or no coverage for many important
current scientists and comparably comprehensive coverage for
pornstars. So, "notability" is an imperfect hack as a standard - what
we need is something better, if that's even possible.
On the other hand, there have been better statements of this problem
than that expressed by Williams. He seems to both disagree with and
misunderstand the notability standard and its purpose (its aimed at
limiting the quantity of unverified / unverifiable content, and can't
be met through the personal judgment of an editor). His own article,
which seems to have been principally written and edited by himself
and/or a close friend, is a good example of the problem: almost no
secondary, independent coverage. There are 45 references, but almost
all are to published primary research or websites controlled by the
subject. If the standard for inclusion were perhaps "importance"
rather than notability, maybe his and similar articles would find a
more welcoming home; but they would still be poorly referenced and
impossible to independently verify.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A blog post by a scientist (posted via Wikipedian in
Residence Daniel
Mietchen on his own blog) about how porno outweighs quality scientist
content on Wikipedia:
http://wir.okfn.org/2011/11/18/why-are-pornstars-more-notable-than-scientis…
-Sara
--
Sarah Stierch Consulting
Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sarahstierch.com/
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap