I was curious about this very thing. At first I thought this was a really cool thing she was doing. I think everyone should be rewarded for their hard work, research or discoveries.
I guess I can't say I'm a fan of the way she went about this though, after reading some of what she's written:
Her comment:
"The problem is not that she’s not notable, or that @Wikipedia editors are a bunch of sexist trolls waiting to jump on the bio of an impressive scientist"
Seems to be in reply to this comment:
"There is a lack of significant independent coverage. Getting an award from the local YWCA does not help her meet any notability criteria. As a for notability as a scientist, my search in Google Scholar found a grand total of 1 citation of papers she has authored or co-authored. Just because she works for the government doesn't mean she can't publish papers (and she has), the only restriction is if her work is classified. Her participation in the discovery of element 117 appears to have been very minor. Her name does not appear in the Oak Ridge publication "The Discovery of Element 117". Her Oak Ridge autobio says her part of the discovery of the new element was to "contribute ... to the purification of the Bk-249 used to help discover Z=117". Sounds like a very minor role in an undertaking involving a large number of people. I don't see convincing evidence that she is notable as a scientist or meets WP:GNG. I agree with the others who cited WP:TOOSOON as an issue."
This is all found on the wikipage that was part of the original article:
Which I honestly find pretty reasonable. If you were to make a Wikipedia article for every college professor, we'd have a pretty bloated Wikipedia, lol.
That said, I really do hope that maybe we could focus on quality vs quantity. I don't doubt that there are 1000 people out there deserving of a Wikipedia page... I also don't doubt that perhaps some of her examples don't really qualify, given Wikipedia's guidelines.
This tweet seems to be the source of that remark from her; it is difficult to say who exactly the sexist troll remark is directed at since it's worded in a sly way which says the problem isn't sexist trolls.
It's a very trollish way to accuse somebody of being a sexist troll. Like if I were to say to a third party "Jim and I had an argument.. the problem ISN'T that Jim is a fascist asshole, but rather that..." Strictly I'm not accusing Jim of being a fascist asshole, but really I am.
Yea... seems a bit immature too. Didn't address anything the wiki dude said and blamed "society at large" for not producing enough notability for wikipedia.
Also in that twitter thread she says:
"She may have discovered an element, .."
Ironically, it seems the wikieditors did more research because they posted
"Her Oak Ridge autobio says her part of the discovery of the new element was to "contribute ... to the purification of the Bk-249 used to help discover Z=117""
Using the very source that she used to create the article, it is known that she:
I really appreciate her effort and goal but with just this one article she's:
- spread misinformation (possibly deliberately)
- broke wikipedia's rules on "canvassing support"
- accused people of bigotry (for merely disagreeing)
All in all, not very helpful to her cause at all... instead of celebrating what is clearly an interesting person, we are now here debating accolades because the original author got carried away.
I don't know if she's trying to do that. To me it reads as humorous candor - baldly naming the thing people are probably suspecting and then saying that's not happening.
I imagine it would be harder to navigate, especially in a few decades, if every combination of First name, Last name had a couple entries. There's already 7 for my name. Sure, you could say its not that much harder to navigate... but you can't say it makes things easier or "better."
I would honestly defer to Wiki contributors and maintainers on this, as I'm sure they have better reasons... but my intuition just tells me that letting Wikipedia be a dumping ground for any person that published a paper would just not end well.
>Maybe it already is way too bloated, and a wikipedia 10% the current size is better?
Perhaps. I think they should do a lot more "merging" of topics.
I guess I can't say I'm a fan of the way she went about this though, after reading some of what she's written:
Her comment:
"The problem is not that she’s not notable, or that @Wikipedia editors are a bunch of sexist trolls waiting to jump on the bio of an impressive scientist"
Seems to be in reply to this comment:
"There is a lack of significant independent coverage. Getting an award from the local YWCA does not help her meet any notability criteria. As a for notability as a scientist, my search in Google Scholar found a grand total of 1 citation of papers she has authored or co-authored. Just because she works for the government doesn't mean she can't publish papers (and she has), the only restriction is if her work is classified. Her participation in the discovery of element 117 appears to have been very minor. Her name does not appear in the Oak Ridge publication "The Discovery of Element 117". Her Oak Ridge autobio says her part of the discovery of the new element was to "contribute ... to the purification of the Bk-249 used to help discover Z=117". Sounds like a very minor role in an undertaking involving a large number of people. I don't see convincing evidence that she is notable as a scientist or meets WP:GNG. I agree with the others who cited WP:TOOSOON as an issue."
This is all found on the wikipage that was part of the original article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
Which I honestly find pretty reasonable. If you were to make a Wikipedia article for every college professor, we'd have a pretty bloated Wikipedia, lol.
That said, I really do hope that maybe we could focus on quality vs quantity. I don't doubt that there are 1000 people out there deserving of a Wikipedia page... I also don't doubt that perhaps some of her examples don't really qualify, given Wikipedia's guidelines.