Hi
Contrary to Dominic's response, which is beautifully-written as always, I
believe Ms. Chinea would like to take a look at the Conflict of Interest
guidelines located here [1]. The Conflict of Interest Noticeboard has her
issue currently listed [2]. The userpage and the article about Ms. Chinea
both mention her name and her biography in third person. It is strongly
discouraged for editors to write about themselves or things close to them.
It is usually advisable for someone neutral to write an article about
someone so they can remain objective.
The tone on the deletion request as others have pointed doesn't seem
personal to me. The Conflict of Interest noticeboard also doesn't seem very
personal, but I would differ to others. Mig, I hope you can understand that
editors are volunteers who are just trying to follow policy.
Regards
Theo
[1]
Michael, I think that response is overly harsh, even
if it is true that
Migdia's contributions were not appropriate for the encyclopedia. While
there are certainly spammers who act in bad faith, often what
Wikipedians see as self-promotion is not seen or intended that way by
those who contribute it. In particular, when we are talking about
biographical material and issues of notability, it is very easy for the
issue to become personalized, and for the subject to feel like they are
being persecuted on a personal level (being accused of "vanity," called
not "notable"). I am not certain why Migdia says that the comments were
gender-related, but the feeling of having been singled out and insulted
is a common one for those who have had to go through the deletion
process, and we hear it a lot.
It is important to remember that Wikipedia's definition of terms like
"notability" is jargon and confusing. To a normal person, being notable
means you've done something important; to a Wikipedian, it means
reporters or academics have written about you. In fact, it is quite
possible to debate the merits of an article without accusing anyone of
self-promotion, even if you believe it's true. The self-promotion issue
is beside the point: in general, we delete articles if they fail our
criteria for inclusion and we keep them if they meet them (self-authored
or not).
Dominic
On 10/18/11 2:10 PM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM,
Nathan<nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I looked at the discussion
> (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anonymous_(Str…
)
> and didn't see personal remarks or
innuendo. Can you point me to them?
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:43 AM, Migdia Chinea<migdia.chinea(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>>
tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(Street_Meat)
>>
>> This deletion was filled with personal remarks and innouendo. It was
>> discouraging of the posting bny any women. I'm angry and frustrated to
have
>> been singled out. Is that treatment to
be expected? Thank you --
>>
>> Migdia Chinea
>>
>> --
>> Migdia& Cicero& Ulla& Tullia-Zoe& Clodia& Aurelius&
Cato the
Younger
Migdia Chinea's only purpose on Wikipedia has
been to promote herself
(whom she deems to be notable as an up-and-coming filmmaker) and her
film (ditto). She considers any challenge to her self-promotion to
constitute an assault on herself as a human being and creative worker,
and refuses to heed any of the advice given her. This is not a gender
issue in any way; I ran into similar problems with the male comix
artist Colin Upton, who left Wikipedia after not liking the way other
people treated the article about him.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap