Good enough for this new page patroller!
From, Emily
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
There are plenty! She was notable before this incident happened. She's been covered/interviewed in *multiple secondary reliable sources*.
-Sarah /who always likes a challenge.
On 3/30/13 12:58 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
On the other hand, we need a secondary source that is more reliable than Facebook or Twitter.
From, Emily
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Awesome! Nice article. I think she is OK on the notability front. Anyone who manages to accumulate more than 4 million *science* followers on facebook without posting regularly on sexual subjects is definitely noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Add to that this strange development on the swear-word gender miscommunication and you pass on the basis of "most bizarre gendergap content to be published in 2013".
2013/3/30, Ilona Buchem buchem@beuth-hochschule.de:
Hi Sarah,
I am following this discussion and it's interesting to see that deciding about an entry is not straight-forward even to "core insiders". I wonder what criteria help decide if something or someone is "worth" an article in WP. How do you decide? Or: What makes it worth it or nor?
-Ilona
Am 3/30/13 5:17 PM, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to write new articles on this mailing list.
Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about I Fucking Love Science instead.
I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the curator in me!)
-Sarah
On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails
WP:NOTNEWS.
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com mailto:jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than
4
million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, had no idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the
bias
occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no? article is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-wo...
facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes." -- Desiderius Erasmus
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist and open culture advocate*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap