I'll go one further, in fact. I think everyone who has been main or sole author on a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal deserves a Wikipedia article. Yes, this would include a whole lot of grad students. But if they're making or have made verifiable contributions to their field, we should be including them. No question.
-Snowspinner
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
I agree. Notability is useless. Certainly, if there was enough notable information on someone to write a decent length article on the person, then they should have an article. But, if you have to pad it with stuff about his being arrested for playing too much ddr, then....
On 9/21/05, Worldtraveller wikipedia@world-traveller.org wrote:
I'll go one further, in fact. I think everyone who has been main or sole author on a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal deserves a Wikipedia article. Yes, this would include a whole lot of grad students. But if they're making or have made verifiable contributions to their field, we should be including them. No question.
-Snowspinner
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
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
On 9/22/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
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
Tell and what. As and when every article about a country is up to date and contains a reasonable amount of info. I'll acturly waste some mental energy of showing the falws in your proposal.
-- geni
Dude, I'd say anybody with an Erdös-Bacon product of 27 is notable :P
On 9/21/05, Worldtraveller wikipedia@world-traveller.org wrote:
I'll go one further, in fact. I think everyone who has been main or sole author on a publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal deserves a Wikipedia article. Yes, this would include a whole lot of grad students. But if they're making or have made verifiable contributions to their field, we should be including them. No question.
-Snowspinner
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