Thing is, the only verifiable thing about me in this context would be that I was one of the authors of a paper. If I am no-one special then ipso facto I shouldn't have an article. I may have an Erdos x Bacon number of 27 but I reckon anything below about 10 for that is not notable enough :)
-----Original Message----- From: Anthony DiPierro [mailto:wikispam@inbox.org] Sent: 22 September 2005 12:17 AM To: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: FW: [WikiEN-l] Improper speedy taggings
Why isn't Wikipedia best served by both? If someone comes across one of your papers and wants to know more about the author, isn't that useful, even if they just find out that the author is no one special?
There's clearly a potential benefit, and I just don't see what the negative is. As long as you stick to insisting that everything in the article is easily verifiable, anyway (which is already a rule outside of notability).
I suppose you could argue that such an article is best served by a dedicated wiki, one for all authors, for instance. But that would mean either creating a fork or taking all articles on authors out of Wikipedia entirely. The other alternative, to have notable authors in Wikipedia and non-notable ones out of Wikipedia, would likely cause way too many problems in implementation. Taking all articles on authors out of Wikipedia is very unlikely to happen, so you're basically ensuring a fork.
Anthony
Nah, I disagree with that. I've written several papers in astronomy, and
a referee's report has even described me as a world leader in my field, but I'd hate to see an article about myself. The specific field I am allegedly a world leader in does not even deserve its own article, although it gets a mention in [[planetary nebula]] (because I wrote that) and one of my papers is cited in [[Cat's Eye Nebula]].
Wikipedia readers are far better served by a brief mention of my field in the appropriate context than they would be by any article on my personal contribution to that field, and I suspect the same is true for 90% of published academics.
WT
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
On entering the GSi, this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
Please see http://www.gsi.gov.uk/main/notices/information/gsi-003-2002.pdf for further details.
In case of problems, please call your organisational IT helpdesk
This email and any files transmitted with it are private and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please return it to the address it came from telling them it is not for you and then delete it from your system.
This email message has been swept for computer viruses.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Energis in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus-free
Then using yourself was a bad example, because the fact that you shouldn't have a Wikipedia article on you has nothing to do with notability. Anthony
On 9/22/05, Worldtraveller wikipedia@world-traveller.org wrote:
Thing is, the only verifiable thing about me in this context would be that I was one of the authors of a paper. If I am no-one special then ipso facto I shouldn't have an article. I may have an Erdos x Bacon number of 27 but I reckon anything below about 10 for that is not notable enough :)