I thought that I'd bring an AfD discussion to the attention of this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanny_Imlay#Fan...
It really is ridiculous that this discussion is even happening, and is yet another example of the gender bias on en:Wikipedia. I've followed the discussion on the article's talk page, and it goes into absurdity. I wouldn't say it there, but how in the world is Imlay not notable but one of the articles I've been working on lately, [[Anthony Field]], is? (I think that Field is notable, but it proves my point, I think.) I bring it to your attention because the article needs our support.
Christine User:Figureskatingfan
On 5/15/12 11:50 AM, Christine Meyer wrote:
I thought that I'd bring an AfD discussion to the attention of this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanny_Imlay#Fan...
It really is ridiculous that this discussion is even happening, and is yet another example of the gender bias on en:Wikipedia. I've followed the discussion on the article's talk page, and it goes into absurdity. I wouldn't say it there, but how in the world is Imlay not notable but one of the articles I've been working on lately, [[Anthony Field]], is? (I think that Field is notable, but it proves my point, I think.) I bring it to your attention because the article needs our support.
Thanks Christine. The article looks like it was a snow keep which is great. I am pretty shocked it was also nominated for deletion. If an article like this - a high quality featured article about a notable historical figure - is nominated for deletion, then about half of Wikipedia should be nominated for deletion because it's "boring" or because the person is so obscure only scholarly folks tend to know who the figure is.
Glad it's safe now :)
It's also all the more reason for folks to monitor the AfD queue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion
-Sarah
It was a "tactical" deletion request. I find that to be a pretty silly maneuver, personally, particularly as the nominators never do a very good job as devil's advocate. If jbmurray didn't think the article should be deleted, he should not have wasted his own time and that of other volunteers by nominating it.
On 5/15/2012 12:47 PM, Nathan wrote:
It was a "tactical" deletion request. I find that to be a pretty silly maneuver, personally, particularly as the nominators never do a very good job as devil's advocate. If jbmurray didn't think the article should be deleted, he should not have wasted his own time and that of other volunteers by nominating it.
I've called for speedily archiving the whole silly incident from the article talk page. Geez.
CM
It was a "tactical" deletion request. I find that to be a pretty silly maneuver, personally, particularly as the nominators never do a very good job >as devil's advocate. If jbmurray didn't think the article should be deleted, he should not have wasted his own time and that of other volunteers >by nominating it.
I consider this to be yet another example that would justify an essay I’ve always thought of writing, “The real world is not Wikipedia”, a thought first kicked off by the nomination for this AfD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Streisand_effec.... in which the nominator (who left the project a long time ago) decided Wikipedia policy should apply to the documents we accept as reliable sources (as opposed to the IP on the talk page, who seems to have felt the article should have gone beyond the notability policy and tried to explain why scholars would have found Ms. Imlay notable enough to write about. This happened to another article I contributed to that reached FA status, as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_State_Route_32/Archive_1#Question It really came down to “yes, it’s notable, but it shouldn’t be”. Daniel Case
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 5:08 AM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case < dancase@frontiernet.net> wrote:
This happened to another article I contributed to that reached FA status, as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_York_State_Route_32/Archive_1#Question
It really came down to “yes, it’s notable, but it *shouldn’t* be”.
Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:.... I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.
Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:.... I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.
Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.
Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki.
~Nathan
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence
I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally centuries of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism that is an article on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's.
LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:.... I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.
Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.
Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki.
~Nathan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
From a gender gap perspective of bringing in new female contributors, I
would argue that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are much more important than Imlay because Gaga and Bieber are of interest to and more accessible to a greater audience than Imlay's article is. I would further argue that it is a bit elitist to dismiss the importance of improving such articles like Bieber and issues around such articles like Bieber while focusing on narrowly scoped articles that are of limited interest and limited ability to attract a large female audience. We might have issues of educational privilege and class amongst participants here that mean we do not adequately address those outside our own backgrounds.
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Lady of Shalott wrote:
I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally centuries of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism that is an article on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's.
LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nawrich@gmail.com');>
wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'laura@fanhistory.com');>
wrote:
Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:.... I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.
Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.
Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki.
~Nathan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org');> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- "Sometimes a tree is actually a deer with twelve horns, standing on a hillock that houses a bird's nest."
from _The Night Life of Trees_, by Bhajju Shyam, Durga Bai, and Ram Singh Urveti, Tara Publishing, 2006
On 5/15/12 6:35 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
From a gender gap perspective of bringing in new female contributors, I would argue that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are much more important than Imlay because Gaga and Bieber are of interest to and more accessible to a greater audience than Imlay's article is. I would further argue that it is a bit elitist to dismiss the importance of improving such articles like Bieber and issues around such articles like Bieber while focusing on narrowly scoped articles that are of limited interest and limited ability to attract a large female audience. We might have issues of educational privilege and class amongst participants here that mean we do not adequately address those outside our own backgrounds.
Hi everyone. I don't think anyone is arguing the importance of Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga and the attraction that primarily young women have towards them. Those articles are also protected, meaning that young women who are new to editing most likely wouldn't be able to edit them. I also could argue that Lady Gaga could be used to also attract young gay boys into editing too. :D (And Gaga is a good article, needing little improvement it seems!)
I believe it's the Twitter account focus that people are a bit confused by. I have a feeling a lot of young women aren't going to be interested in editing articles about the Twitter habits of their favorite celebrities, but more so the life story of those people. Alas, I don't have any specific research to back that theory though. I just am saying it from my own experience as being having my own celebrity obsessions when I was a young kid. I wouldn't quite go as far to say we have systemtic bias towards Bieber or Gaga content, either. I think we all struggle with trying to maintain articles about lesser known figures - whether scientists or sports figures.
But, in the spirit of "can o' worms" perhaps Twitter articles for celebrities are a slippery slope. I have a feeling that if we get Bieber Twitter then we get a Bieber's hair article too =) (technically his hair is notable.)
-Sarah
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012, Lady of Shalott wrote:
I have to say that I think a topic such as Imlay, with literally centuries of scholarship is not really comparable to the recentism that is an article on a Twitter account, whether Bieber's or Gaga's. LadyofShalott/ Aleta Turner On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan <nawrich@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'nawrich@gmail.com');>> wrote: On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'laura@fanhistory.com');>> wrote: Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F . I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles. Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there. Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience. One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki. ~Nathan [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton_Kutcher#Twitter_presence _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org');> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- "Sometimes a tree is actually a deer with twelve horns, standing on a hillock that houses a bird's nest." from _The Night Life of Trees_, by Bhajju Shyam, Durga Bai, and Ram Singh Urveti, Tara Publishing, 2006-- mobile: 0412183663 twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com http://ozziesport.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/12 6:35 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
From a gender gap perspective of bringing in new female contributors, I would argue that Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga are much more important than Imlay because Gaga and Bieber are of interest to and more accessible to a greater audience than Imlay's article is. I would further argue that it is a bit elitist to dismiss the importance of improving such articles like Bieber and issues around such articles like Bieber while focusing on narrowly scoped articles that are of limited interest and limited ability to attract a large female audience. We might have issues of educational privilege and class amongst participants here that mean we do not adequately address those outside our own backgrounds.
Hi everyone. I don't think anyone is arguing the importance of Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga and the attraction that primarily young women have towards them. Those articles are also protected, meaning that young women who are new to editing most likely wouldn't be able to edit them. I also could argue that Lady Gaga could be used to also attract young gay boys into editing too. :D (And Gaga is a good article, needing little improvement it seems!)
I believe it's the Twitter account focus that people are a bit confused by. I have a feeling a lot of young women aren't going to be interested in editing articles about the Twitter habits of their favorite celebrities, but more so the life story of those people. Alas, I don't have any specific research to back that theory though. I just am saying it from my own experience as being having my own celebrity obsessions when I was a young kid. I wouldn't quite go as far to say we have systemtic bias towards Bieber or Gaga content, either. I think we all struggle with trying to maintain articles about lesser known figures - whether scientists or sports figures.
But, in the spirit of "can o' worms" perhaps Twitter articles for celebrities are a slippery slope. I have a feeling that if we get Bieber Twitter then we get a Bieber's hair article too =) (technically his hair is notable.)
We're way offtopic, but the original problem is solved so ...
Here is an example where I thought a separate article was uncalled for
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Savage_bibliography
The AFD is all but over, and I am shocked that so many people believe that this author's collections works and media appearances are separately notable. IMO Bieber's twitter account and Bieber's hair are both more distinctly notable than Savage's collection of works. people talk about Bieber's twitter account and Bieber's hair all the time; they do not regularly talk about Savage's works as a collective. Obviously, mileages vary greatly.
-- John Vandenberg
Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin
Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:.... I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.
Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.
Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki.
One of the problems I personally have with those articles is that it stretches to definition of Wikipedia as a summary resource. If we aim to be exhaustive, in the way those articles represent, where does it end?
As Nathan says; this is a prime example of POV pushing/distortion.
If I wrote a lengthy article about the details of messages Dudley Clarke sent back and forth to John Bevan during World War II (and article I could quite easily source) the community would, quite rightly, delete it.
Tom
The argument for Savage was that an exception should be made for bibliographies, discographies, and so forth, where we would do better to provide complete coverage since it quite easy to do &something which can well be crowd-sourced, fits in with our basic mission, & is appropriate to do in conjunction with articles rather than as some sort of separate database. I opposed the Savage material as a separate article,& would still oppose it today, but I wouldn't now oppose having the material: I think the best way to do this is with subpages.
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:... . I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.
Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.
Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki.
One of the problems I personally have with those articles is that it stretches to definition of Wikipedia as a summary resource. If we aim to be exhaustive, in the way those articles represent, where does it end?
As Nathan says; this is a prime example of POV pushing/distortion.
If I wrote a lengthy article about the details of messages Dudley Clarke sent back and forth to John Bevan during World War II (and article I could quite easily source) the community would, quite rightly, delete it.
Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:59 PM, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
The argument for Savage was that an exception should be made for bibliographies, discographies, and so forth, where we would do better to provide complete coverage since it quite easy to do &something which can well be crowd-sourced, fits in with our basic mission, & is appropriate to do in conjunction with articles rather than as some sort of separate database. I opposed the Savage material as a separate article,& would still oppose it today, but I wouldn't now oppose having the material: I think the best way to do this is with subpages.
As an aside, I have played with classifying some of our non-standard article types (without judging them!) here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Encyclopedic_genre
Thanks, Richard (User:Pharos)
On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 4:30 AM, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young girls) there was an attempt to merge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:... . I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant articles.
Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and should not be there.
Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience.
One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort normal practice on a wiki.
One of the problems I personally have with those articles is that it stretches to definition of Wikipedia as a summary resource. If we aim to be exhaustive, in the way those articles represent, where does it end?
As Nathan says; this is a prime example of POV pushing/distortion.
If I wrote a lengthy article about the details of messages Dudley Clarke sent back and forth to John Bevan during World War II (and article I could quite easily source) the community would, quite rightly, delete it.
Tom
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Too bad she wasn't nominated for any porn awards, then she would be clearly notable.[1] As it stands, she only has 1 biography and a couple hundred years of scholarly commentary, so it seems like a borderline case to me.</sarcasm>
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28people%29#Pornographic_...
Ryan Kaldari
On 5/15/12 8:50 AM, Christine Meyer wrote:
I thought that I'd bring an AfD discussion to the attention of this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fanny_Imlay#Fan...
It really is ridiculous that this discussion is even happening, and is yet another example of the gender bias on en:Wikipedia. I've followed the discussion on the article's talk page, and it goes into absurdity. I wouldn't say it there, but how in the world is Imlay not notable but one of the articles I've been working on lately, [[Anthony Field]], is? (I think that Field is notable, but it proves my point, I think.) I bring it to your attention because the article needs our support.
Christine User:Figureskatingfan
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap