3 ms·

I have published, and I definitely don't want, need nor deserve a wikipedia entry. I'd say too many people already have one. If a scientist has made a bit of sc

by tgv 4y ago

I have published, and I definitely don't want, need nor deserve a wikipedia entry. I'd say too many people already have one. If a scientist has made a bit of school, fine, but otherwise: no entry just for having published.

robswc 4y ago
Yep. I've also won awards and have published a paper (co-authored) but I imagine if I were to create a wiki entry it would be deleted under the same exact standards.
LatteLazy 4y ago
Same. God help any of us if we're required to start maintaining our own wikipedia pages along with linked-in, pub-ed, CVs etc...
- petee 4y ago
  Lucky for you Wikipedia considers editing your own page to be a conflict of interest, and is frowned upon. Article subjects are routinely reminded that they do not own their article, as it should be a reflection of notible sources that exist
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    All the more of an issue: if an ex or disgruntled whatever starts a page about me, I am unable to correct it or get it deleted? For once I am glad us brits have such insane liable laws... :)
    - petee 4y ago
      If it were entirely factual, based on notible sources, and met the usual criteria, then no it probably wouldn't be deleted. If it is factually incorrect, or has no approved sources then it would be fairly easy to get help either deleting the offending material, or even having the article deleted outright. Wikipedia has a few ways to report issues, but even just asking an administrator on their talk page to take a look, is fairly common. Wikipedia takes living persons more seriously, and has higher standards than other articles. Beyond just reverting, some edits are irretrievably deleted if warranted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_liv...
      - LatteLazy 4y ago
        That relies on the person the article is about being notable enough to have sources. You won't get sources (let alone reliable ones) for my neighbour Barry. So any article about Barry (or any non notable person) is going to be unsourced... That's one of the issues with articles about non noteworthy people...
Ekaros 4y ago
I think standard should be something like reasonably well known in relation to the field in question. And enough appearances in media at least print. It is rather hard standard to pin down, but at this point being scientist is not exactly rare job and neither is being professor. So to be notable you need rather decent level of visibility.

by tgv 4y ago

robswc 4y ago

Yep. I've also won awards and have published a paper (co-authored) but I imagine if I were to create a wiki entry it would be deleted under the same exact standards.

LatteLazy 4y ago

Same. God help any of us if we're required to start maintaining our own wikipedia pages along with linked-in, pub-ed, CVs etc...

petee 4y ago
Lucky for you Wikipedia considers editing your own page to be a conflict of interest, and is frowned upon. Article subjects are routinely reminded that they do not own their article, as it should be a reflection of notible sources that exist
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  All the more of an issue: if an ex or disgruntled whatever starts a page about me, I am unable to correct it or get it deleted? For once I am glad us brits have such insane liable laws... :)
  - petee 4y ago
    If it were entirely factual, based on notible sources, and met the usual criteria, then no it probably wouldn't be deleted. If it is factually incorrect, or has no approved sources then it would be fairly easy to get help either deleting the offending material, or even having the article deleted outright. Wikipedia has a few ways to report issues, but even just asking an administrator on their talk page to take a look, is fairly common. Wikipedia takes living persons more seriously, and has higher standards than other articles. Beyond just reverting, some edits are irretrievably deleted if warranted. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_liv...
    - LatteLazy 4y ago
      That relies on the person the article is about being notable enough to have sources. You won't get sources (let alone reliable ones) for my neighbour Barry. So any article about Barry (or any non notable person) is going to be unsourced... That's one of the issues with articles about non noteworthy people...

Ekaros 4y ago

I think standard should be something like reasonably well known in relation to the field in question. And enough appearances in media at least print. It is rather hard standard to pin down, but at this point being scientist is not exactly rare job and neither is being professor. So to be notable you need rather decent level of visibility.