Talk:Danah boyd

Importance -- Is this person notable?

Danah is the premier researcher and commentor of on-line social network services and software. Her importance in that field is unquestioned by those in the field or close to it. She's much less a Yahoo! employee than an academic studying social networking services (and she's consulted with Google, Friendster, etc. too). If you doubt her importance, just take a look at her cv. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Wikipedia editing process, but when a template is added to an article, a discussion should take place on the article's Talk page before it is considered for removal. As far as I can tell, the template was up just a few hours before you hastily removed it. Perhaps this is due to your assumed personal association with boyd, in which case this article borders dangerously on that of a vanity page. Please consider your objectivity, as well as respect for the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, in your future edits.
2. With all due respect, I'm questioning her importance. As I recall, boyd hasn't published a book, she doesn't hold a full-time research position anywhere, and she hasn't even finished her Ph.D. yet. She's consulted at major corporations, as have many others. While I'm deeply impressed by her publications and accomplishments, they hardly rival those of even her own mentors.
3. On the other hand, if boyd is indeed "the premier researcher" in her field, the article should say so and say why (it does neither). Hence the importance template. The bulk of the article is currently about her background. No specific contributions to her field are listed.

With that said, let's get some discussion going about boyd's most significant contributions to the field of online social networks. The link you referenced above is a great starting point. In the meantime, I'm going to replace the template. (Posted 09:42, March 23, 2006 by User:128.210.125.110)

As to 1., ok. I see so many anonymous strangeness that I probably did revert to quickly. I apologize. I would characterize my edits on this page being purely maintenance-related (IIRC).

As to 2., you seem to be correct under the current Notability guidelines for people. I don't believe she meets the "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" criterion. I think she definitely meets the proposed Notability guidelines for academics (although I'm not sure if that applies to students).

As to 3., I apologize but I don't know her work as well as someone in the online social networks field, she's just a fellow colleague and I watch her page.

I suppose you could propose this article for deletion and see if someone familiar with her work and in her field is watching the page and can add more context then merely a link to her cv. I feel she is notable... she's one of the most notable graduate students at UC Berkeley, I would say... I don't think I could prove that, however. -- Joebeone (Talk) 02:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Later: Actually, looking at her CV... the following might meet the above "publish" criterion (If Spolsky's book has sold enough and if you consider Salon.com a periodical):

• "Autistic Social Software ." danah boyd. In Best Software Writing I (ed. Joel Spolsky). Berkeley: Apress. 2005.

• "Turmoil in blogland." danah boyd. Salon.com op-ed. 5 January 2005.

• "The New Blogocracy." danah boyd. Salon.com op-ed. 28 July 2004.

Thoughts? -- Joebeone (Talk) 02:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been informed by someone who knows more about the subject than I do that my above statement (the first in this section) is probably wrong. That is, Clay Shirky is probably the most prominent commentor and danah is close. As for research, I just don't know how to evaluate it but am probably also incorrect. Anyway, it appears that Justin Hall created the page (a friend of danah's) and that's getting awfully close to a vanity page. I am going to propose this article for deletion in a while (I'm waiting for others to chime in). -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I am in danah's field--I'm a graduate student at another university (my homepage is http://museumfreak.livejournal.com) who once had danah on a panel that I organized. I think the first question we have to answer (and danah herself seems to have issues with answering this question, which i certainly appreciate) is what danah's field is. I agree that Clay Shirky is probably the most prominent commentator, so calling danah it is probably inappropriate. Clay Shirky, however, is not an academic. Howard Rheingold and Sherry Turkle are also likely close . . . I'll think more about this. danah, however, may be the most important young voice in the field . . . museumfreak

This is Clay. Given the importance of MySpace in the national debate on social issues of online spaces, and given danah's preeminence on that topic, I think she has become the more prominent commentator. That having been said, I think phrases like 'most prominent commentator' are probably not suitable for Wikipedia articles on living persons, given the fickle finger of fate. Superlative judgement is best tied to events or to historic performance ('Lance Armstrong was the preeminent competitor in the Tour de France in the early 2000s.') So I think danah merits inclusion, not least because she is visible enough that people will want to look her up, but I don't think the judgment to include her should rest on such superlatives, nor should they be featured in her page, or indeed on any page where such judgment isn't historical. Clay Shirky

I created the page because danah is inescapable in the contemporary conversations about online communities. I am social with her as well, so take it with a grain of salt, but I see danah publishing enough ground-breaking material about the emergence of a new medium (online social networks) to believe she warrants some mention here. You can measure her in terms of published books, or articles - these are traditional metrics of productivity. In the blog age? danah boyd has a lot of inbound links, and I think that counts for something. Most recently, her writing on teenaged socializing in MySpace pushed the limits of the dialog surrounding safety and children online. If she's mostly or nearly worthy now, granted her prodigious publishing rate and her young age, she is on track to make a significant contribution to her field. -- JustinHall 21:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm obviously not qualified and in no position given my social interactions with the subject to make a determination one way or another. -- Joebeone (Talk) 21:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

In order to verify the subject's notability, I would like to see a list of her published works added to the page. Specifically: What has she written, when, and who published it. Also, if she's genuinely well-known, then her name will have come up in other press. Listing a few of the more prominent mentions would be useful. The bit about the hat with the fuzzy ears also has to go, unless it can be shown that a mention of that hat has appeared in credible press. Otherwise it's "original research." (see WP:NOR) --Elonka 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you can start with the link to her CV at the beginning of this thread. I could provide a list of instances that she's appeared in the press (including NYT magazine, IIRC). The hat with the fuzzy ears is one of danah's essential features and that has appeared a number of times in credible press. I have to do other things. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

To be clear -- I am not volunteering to edit the article (I have plenty of other articles that I am working on), I am just offering advice on how to keep Danah's article from being deleted, since I have a fair amount of experience in what makes a Wikipedia article "stick". A verbal vouching from her peers, is not sufficient proof of notability on Wikipedia. Neither is it sufficient to say "Someone is notable, go verify it yourself." If an article is to avoid deletion, then the article needs to supply sufficient references and proof of notability. Linking to a resume or CV is not sufficient, since those don't count as "credible sources," though they can definitely give pointers to where credible sources can be found. To put it another way: If information has not been published elsewhere, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If it's on Wikipedia, then it should have references to where it's been written about elsewhere. In terms of Boyd's notability, the Wikipedia article should spell it out -- not "of course she's famous", but "here is proof as to why she's famous." There's a certain amount of wiggle room in terms of personally-supplied information, like about schools attended and date of birth (see WP:AUTO), but to make a claim of notability, the proof has to be spelled out in the article itself. Does that make more sense? --Elonka 21:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being specific. I'm hoping my recent edit [1] clears up this issue of notability and that we might agree to take the {{importance}} banner away in the near future.-- Joebeone (Talk) 23:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, the article is borderline. It still feels too much like a case of "Her friends think she's famous" article, which isn't sufficient. To help convince me, please find one or more of the following:

• An article on a major news site (CNN, BBC, FoxNews, something like that), that talks about her.
• An article that Boyd has written for a major site (Salon.com counts towards notability, but isn't enough to make the "premier researcher" case). What else has she written that has shown up in hardcopy, or on a radio/televised broadcast?
• Find some other *famous* blog (something that's famous enough to have its own solid Wikipedia page), and show a place on that blog, where a famous third party blogger has said, "Danah Boyd is the premier researcher". This one will still be a judgment call, but it'll help.
• Ditto for the hat with the ears. Unless someone can provide credible press that shows that she's "known" for it, it has to be deleted from the article.

Good luck, and if there's anything else that I can do to help, or any advice that I can offer, please let me know! --Elonka 18:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, she was recently on O'Reilly's "The Factor" talking about MySpace... I won't cite that. I don't consider this borderline anymore, but will refrain from contributing for a bit to see if others add/etc. The fuzzy hat is a staple of her character, I'm not sure why a style (like Mr. T's style of mohawk) itself has to be notable for inclusion. Anyway, I'm nonplussed here. -- Joebeone (Talk) 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When was she on the show? What date? Is her name listed on their website? List the URL. As for the hat, in my opinion, it makes the entire page look more amateurish -- it makes the information look like a promotional piece, instead of an encyclopedia article. My recommendation is to review the article from top to bottom (it's fine if you do it, Joebeone), but make sure that every single sentence is verifiable (please read WP:VERIFY), and from credible sources, which, where possible, are accessible to the general public so that others can verify them (that's another problem with Salon.com, is that the articles are often buried behind password). It's also important to avoid emotional and promotional language, and to keep everything very dry and deposition-like. If the article sounds more like an encyclopedia article, and less like a Myspace profile, it will improve the article's longevity. --Elonka 22:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, it's important to note that the hat makes the page look amateurish in your opinion. To danah, I believe, it is more something to shake up the traditional academics that she works with and presents her work too. I could not find a link on the O'Reilly Factor web page as it is a train wreck example of web design and they don't seem too interested in archiving things; I did find this, though[2]. I can send you a transcript of the interview retrieved from Lexis-Nexis (although, due to copyright concerns, I would be taking a big risk to put it on the public web.). -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzy Hat

So, should the line about her being known for her fuzzy hat be removed?

I can't imagine how I would find a cite for it (although a quick Google search[3] shows that many people consider it a trademark of hers). I don't think any of the press about her mentions the hat. It's not an essential part of the article although it does seem to be an essential part of her. If it must be cited or removed, I suppose it will have to be removed.

Well, it's not in her O'Reilly pic, and when I saw her speak at AAAS, to the best of my recollection she wasn't wearing it there either. If you can find multiple pics of her wearing it in various newspapers/magazines, then that would qualify as being "known" for it. Otherwise, I'd say remove it for now -- it can always be added in later if credible press picks it up. For now, as a rule of thumb, keep in mind that blogs and message board posts can't be used as Wikipedia sources. --Elonka 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, she is known for it, but I suppose not "known" in a manner that meets the WP:VERIFY criteria. I'll take it out. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

Okay, I dug in and did the research for myself, and I agree at this point that she has a sufficient body of work to qualify for notability. I've done an extensive rewrite on the page, but am done for now, if anyone else wants to add anything. Or let me know what else you think might further improve it. --Elonka 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Danah subscribes to the "don't edit your own entry" philosophy and has just recently posted[4] a blog post to point out some errors in the current version and to criticize the current notion of WP:N. I'm going to make any corrections that still seem to be in order. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

NPR

I removed one of the NPR listings from the "References" section, because I couldn't verify it. On Boyd's press page she says that she was on NPR twice, but upon closer inspection, I could only find one. The February 2006 segment was confirmed, but the August 2005 listing, though it says NPR, seems to have instead been an NPR podcast called "To the Point". I poked around but couldn't find a link to the actual episode (or any verification of Boyd's participation), so I've removed the link for now. If anyone else can dig up verification (like a link to the actual podcast), it can be re-added to the article later. --Elonka 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Renaming proposal

I am thinking that this article should probably be moved from "Danah boyd" to "Danah Boyd" (both names capitalized), per Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Naming conventions), which states that an article title should be that name by which a subject or person is best known. I am aware that many of Boyd's fans feel that her name should be lowercase, but the Wikipedia policy is to follow the usage of verifiable press (Wikipedia:Verifiability), not from personal knowledge or blogs or fansites. In all of the major media articles that I checked today (NY Times, NPR, USA Today, etc.), Boyd's name is capitalized normally: "Danah Boyd", so the Wikipedia article should probably reflect this usage, unless someone can come up with verifiable references to prove that she is better known by the lowercase spelling? The "also known as 'danah boyd'" can still remain in the article as a common alternate, but, here on Wikipedia, the primary article title should reflect the way it most often appears in the press. --Elonka 17:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I personally think that this is silly... for example, it would seem that as long as the press consistently mispelled one's name, the Wikipedia article corresponding to that person would be located at the mispelling (with redirects from the correct spelling). Is there a specific Wikipedia policy page that mentions that, regardless of the subject's preferences, their name should be mispelled if the press doesn't abide by their spelling preferences? To be clear: I'm not going to argue with the Wikipedia rule in question, as it's consistent with other such rules, so go ahead and rename. It's just that this seems to be taking WP:VERIFY a bit far, no?

"No, i did not forget to capitalize that, but i've quickly learned that most people don't appreciate my decision to leave the capitalization out of my name. There are a lot of reasons that i got rid of the capital letters in the final name change, some personal and some political."[5] -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Later: I poked around the naming conventions link you've posted below and while I don't see this specific case (where a person's name is spelled different by the press than they would have it spelled), it seems that it flows from all the other wikipedia policy and guidelines. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I still feel weird about this... shouldn't there be exceptions for facts when a living person can provide them? I would like to find a way to have the article reflect he preferred spelling of her name. But, I won't push it. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

My name is legally lower-cased. Formal documents have my name in all caps (just like everyone else), but the signature on all documentation is lower-cased. (This is no different than my old advisor - van Dam.) My two diplomas are in lower-case, my school records are in lower-case, my employment papers are lower-case, all of my publications are lower-case. Wherever mixed case is the norm, my name is lower-case. The exception is newsmedia which often forget the 'h' and capitalize it because of their editor's rules. I've given up trying to fix it. Still, it is wrong. Why should Wikipedia duplicate this error? Would someone please revert my name to lower-case throughout the article? -- zephoria (Talk) 20:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've done this where it wasn't at the beginning of a sentence. -- Joebeone (Talk) 20:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

: Hi Danah. Unfortunately, you seem to have a misconception of how Wikipedia works. I strongly recommend reading the policies and guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research. In a nutshell: Wikipedia is not for placing "the truth", it is for placing summaries of information that is already published in other credible news sources. If you can't convince the NY Times, NPR, USA Today, and Fox News to lowercase your name, that makes a really tough case to argue on Wikipedia, since the policy here is to only incorporate information after it's been published elsewhere. If, however, you *can* convince the major media outlets to print it differently in future press, then that will make a stronger case to get the Wikipedia article adapted to match. Or in other words, don't sweat it for an immediate change -- take the long view. --Elonka 20:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is mainstream media the arbiter of truth? I find this *extremely* problematic. We all know that they're wrong quite frequently. Why shouldn't my public publications or diplomas have weight? Why can't the fact that i'm alive and know my own name matter? This isn't about policies and guidelines - this is about creating a meaningful digital encyclopedia. If the policies and guidelines are generating crap, they need to be revisited. That's been Jimmy's belief since the beginning. The only point of having policies and guidelines is to make a better site, not to rely on them just cuz. Of course, if you want a media confirmation, check out the San Francisco Chronicle profile - it begins with the casing issue (and has a picture of the fuzzy hat). --Zephoria 20:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I work for Yahoo! but i do not speak as a representative of them - i speak as an expert on social technologies. I do not study social networks at Yahoo! The only talk that i've given based on resesarch i did at Yahoo! is the tagging talk at IASummit. For complete transparency, Y! did fund my travel to IASummit, Etech and SXSW this year, but this is only 3 of 21 conferences i attended this year. My talk at SXSW had nothing to do with Y! or my research there; my talk at Etech was mostly about my research on MySpace and Friendster, although i used my knowledge of Craigslist and Flickr to flesh it out. All of my research on MySpace and youth and social networks is funded by the Macarthur Foundation. I am part of a multimillion dollar Macarthur digital youth research grant (PIs: Mimi Ito, Peter Lyman, Michael Carter). I am co-advised by Peter Lyman and Mimi Ito. --Zephoria 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Ryan and i had an Epix account that we shared; Ry was online long before i was - i thought it was stupid. He taught me that the Internet had people. I can't say that i learned about the digital world through Epix - i learned about it through Usenet and IRC and BBSes; Epix was simply how we got online and the address of our email account. --Zephoria 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved to San Francisco because i wanted to; V-Day was based in New York. V-Day understood that i needed to be in SF for my own sanity, but i did not move there because of them - i worked remotely. I started working for V-Day in 1999, after hosting one of the first college campaign productions of The Vagina Monologues. I built online communities for them from 1998-2003 (first as a volunteer and then as staff). --Zephoria 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

When i came to San Francisco, i started documenting the emergence of Friendster on my blog. THEN, through my blog, many people working on social software contacted me; only a fraction of them were building social networks systems. The folks at Friendster never wanted to talk to me - they thought i was wrong when i told them that they would lose users by attacking them. --Zephoria 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that i'm best known for my research on social networks and online systems, not for my media appearances. I'm in the media because i'm an academic expert and because academics and industry folks point them to me because of my research. My media appearances take my research further, but i'm not simply a news face because i'm a news face. Of course, this is less a factual inaccuracy and more a difference in opinion. --Zephoria 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)