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@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-scientist...

-Sara

--

Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.

---

http://www.sarahstierch.com/

---

Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap