I am sorry, but are you all aware that Anita's biography was proposed for
deletion three days ago, and the decision was a snow "keep"?
I don't see any risk at all of her article being deleted now. I reiterate,
we should invite her to take part in discussions here, and perhaps work on
improving her article, but we don't need to worry about it being deleted.
Andreas
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Emily Monroe <emilymonroe03(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
I've read the strings and visited Ms.
Sarkeesian's Wikipedia and
self-published website, Feminist Frequency, as
well as Kickstarter, and
Forbes write up about the Wikipedia Sarkeesian article debacle ("W-SAD").
As a disclaimer, I have done none of these things. Therefore, I have
absolutely no opinion on Ms. Sarkeesian or her article. I have, however,
read Thomas' email, and agree with him.
I weigh in on Ms. Sarkeesian's behalf about
notability. Let's give her a
chance to advance the eternal cause of feminine value and voice. She has
extraordinary, and even visionary ideas, and deserves our temperance and
admiration. She is not just a blogger. She is not someone who will become
less meaningful and whose sole impact on society will be only the W-SAD.
She is one of ours, a gem who comes out swinging.
Karen, let me refer to one of Wikipedia's policies, what Wikipedia is not:
Wikipedia is not a soapbox
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soapbox>, a
battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This
applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user
pages.
Personally, I would greatly hesitate to call an article about a feminist
blogger "propaganda", however, it may or may not fall under
"soapbox",
"advertising" and "showcasing", depending on the individual article.
Note that depending on the wording, an article could be essentially
propaganda, advertising, or showcasing, but it may not always reflect on
notability.
Just because I want to be incredibly clear about what notability is, here
is what the nutshell at Wikipedia:Notability (people) says:
- A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received
significant coverage in
reliable<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources>
secondary
sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Prim…
that
are
independent<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources…
of
the subject.
- Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included
in a stand alone list article.
- *All biographies of living individuals *must* comply with the policy
on biographies of living
individuals<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP>LP>,
being supported by sufficientreliable independent
sources<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS> to
ensure neutrality <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV>.
And here is the nutshell at Notability (web):
Wikipedia should avoid articles about web sites
that could be interpreted
as advertising <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPAM>. For
material published on the web to have its own article in Wikipedia, it
should be notable <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:N>and of historical
significance <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RECENTISM>.
Wikipedia articles about web content should use citations from reliable
sources <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:V>.
If a page about her went up prematurely, let us watch it evolve, and take
heart, celebrating her crowdsourcing success and
ability to challenge
stereotypes of the type W-SAD manifests.
This is where I will show my deletionist tendencies.
If an article qualifies to be deleted *today*, it needs to be nominated
for deletion *today*, and then deleted if there is no improvement. if it
doesn't need to be deleted, I have faith that it will, most likely (and
hopefully!), be rescued from deletion, or even rewritten from scratch,
if/when it's nominated for deletion. On the other hand, I can see where
this might be less true for articles with female subjects, and I'll get
into this later.
I'm guessestimating you are willing to go up to bat for Ms. Sarkeesians'
article, and that there are at least one or two people on the list who may
feel the same (even if they don't participate in any discussion about this).
I know that there might be a double standard, where female subjects are
less likely to have articles than male subjects, particularly in
male-dominated fields. The only concern I have, and I'm not certain of
this, is that this might apply to deletion of articles with female
subjects, where they are more likely to be deleted. Karen, is this what you
are concerned about?
From,
Emily
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Karen Sue Rolph <karenrolph(a)hotmail.com>wrote;wrote:
>
> Dear Wikipedia gender topic colleagues,
>
> I've read the strings and visited Ms. Sarkeesian's Wikipedia and
self-published website, Feminist Frequency, as
well as Kickstarter, and
Forbes write up about the Wikipedia Sarkeesian article debacle ("W-SAD").
>
I weigh in on Ms. Sarkeesian's behalf about
notability. Let's give her a
chance to advance the eternal cause of feminine value and voice. She has
extraordinary, and even visionary ideas, and deserves our temperance and
admiration. She is not just a blogger. She is not someone who will become
less meaningful and whose sole impact on society will be only the W-SAD.
She is one of ours, a gem who comes out swinging.
>
> If a page about her went up prematurely, let us watch it evolve, and take
> heart, celebrating her crowdsourcing success and ability to challenge
> stereotypes of the type W-SAD manifests. This does not mean I am
> suggesting she will be world famous in 100 years. The Feminist cause and
> its merits find far too few role models. Girl gamers and gender specialists
> are going to appreciate having this article and its referencing and links
> to turn to. The story is cautionary, and ever-so current. If we have
> something to be skeptical about, time will clarify why.
>
> Please, let us give Ms. Sarkeesian's work encouragement to flourish, and
> see what this dynamic woman does for the gender gap in space and time. I'm
> of the conviction there is profound social importance in this provocative
> artist's ideas.
>
> KSRolph
>
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap