On 9/16/05, Snowspinner <Snowspinner(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For what it's worth, I disagree. I think that in
an encyclopedia,
which values peer-reviewed sources and academic knowledge
particularly highly, there is a real case to be made that professors
at accredited universities are notable. The way I see it, pretty much
all professors, whether PhDs, JDs, or whatever, have made some sort
of contribution to their field - law review articles, dissertations,
other publications. If we're the sum total of human knowledge, we'd
cover all those contributions. Thus articles on the professors seem
sensible by default.
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.
My brother was one of three main authors of a published article in a
peer-reviewed scholarly journal as an <u>undergrad</u> student. But
there's no way I would agree that he deserves an article on that basis
alone.
Combine that with his name on several patents as inventor or
co-inventor, that he's a highly desired public speaker in one of his
fields of expertise, the books he's credited in, and the books he's in
the process of writing and I think he's getting closer.
But based on a single article? That seems a little extreme to me. If
you felt the compulsion, it would be better to summarize each of the
thousands of peer reviewed journal articles themselves and mention
each otherwise not-notable-enough-for-an-article-of-their-own authors
there.
--
Michael Turley
User:Unfocused