On 5/11/06, Russell Blackford russellblackford@bigpond.com wrote:
<snip> Wikipedia has a systemic bias to do with anything to do with the media and entertainment (including professional sport). The easiest way, it seems, is to write some articles for a popular-ish magazine with a print run of 5000+. That isn't beyond the bounds of human possibility for anyone who has the skills to be a regular Wikipedia editor. Almost everyone I know over the age of 30 meets that criterion.
Somewhat harder, but still do-able, is to write some obscure and ephemeral novels that nonetheless appear in mass market paperback editions, with sales of over 5000.
Ironically, you can meet those criteria while not being considered notable for important articles in academic journals, or even important academic books, which commonly have print runs of less than 5000 but may end up having a lot more long-term, real-world impact.
Yeah, that's really sad. I didn't realise there was this disparity between publication in the popular press and publication for academics. But it makes some sense - publishing something in a magazine gets you noticed