On the other hand, we need a secondary source that is more reliable than Facebook or Twitter.
From, Emily On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > Awesome! Nice article. I think she is OK on the notability front. > Anyone who manages to accumulate more than 4 million *science* > followers on facebook without posting regularly on sexual subjects is > definitely noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Add to that this strange > development on the swear-word gender miscommunication and you pass on > the basis of "most bizarre gendergap content to be published in 2013". > > 2013/3/30, Ilona Buchem <buc...@beuth-hochschule.de>: > > Hi Sarah, > > > > I am following this discussion and it's interesting to see that deciding > > about an entry is not straight-forward even to "core insiders". I wonder > > what criteria help decide if something or someone is "worth" an article > > in WP. How do you decide? Or: What makes it worth it or nor? > > > > -Ilona > > > > Am 3/30/13 5:17 PM, schrieb Sarah Stierch: > >> Oh Michael, the bearer of bad news about people who generally want to > >> write new articles on this mailing list. > >> > >> Is there another article where we think this type of coverage or > >> content could be placed? I think we could even build an article about > >> I Fucking Love Science instead. > >> > >> I still question if it's officially not worth an article, I haven't > >> researched it yet. But, at this point I'm a "pro" at making people > >> most declare non-notable rather notable based on research. (Oh the > >> curator in me!) > >> > >> -Sarah > >> > >> On 3/30/13 6:08 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote: > >>> It's appalling and depressing; but if somebody were to write a > >>> Wikipedia article about it, at this point, I'd say it fails WP:NOTNEWS. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com > >>> <mailto:jane...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Did anyone see this? A popular blogger on Science (with more than 4 > >>> million followers) is a woman. The woman herself, Elise Andrew, > >>> had no > >>> idea it was a secret, and she was "outed" when she announced her > >>> twitter account featuring a picture of herself. Apparently the bias > >>> occurred because of the swear word on her facebook page which made > >>> readers assume she was a man. Interesting conclusion! This is a > >>> facebook hype that deserves a WP page, no? > >>> > >>> article is here: > >>> > >>> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/us-news-blog/2013/mar/20/i-love-science-woman-facbook > >>> facebook page here: > >>> http://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience > >>> The TV interview with Dr. Michio Kaku on CBS morning show is here: > >>> http://cbsn.ws/109mAEL > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gendergap mailing list > >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey > >>> > >>> "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy > >>> food and clothes." > >>> -- Desiderius Erasmus > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Gendergap mailing list > >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >> > >> > >> -- > >> *Sarah Stierch* > >> */Museumist and open culture advocate/* > >> >>Visit sarahstierch.com <http://sarahstierch.com><< > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Gendergap mailing list > >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
