Talk:Slate Star Codex

Article

Calvinballing, the old article is in the WayBack Machine: [1]. Benjamin (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Resubmission

I don't disagree with theroadislong that many of the references included are passing mentions. However, I think that highlighting that many of the references are passing mentions fails to account for and address the strongest references.  Several are explicitly about Slate Star Codex or responding to Slate Star Codex posts, including:

-"The Scourge of Cost Disease" from the Weekly Standard -"Why the 'Depression Gene' Fiasco Is Bad News for Science" from Mother Jones -the newly added reference: "Notable & Quotable: Academic Groupthink" from the WSJ -"Red tape at the FDA doesn’t explain America’s high drug prices" from Vox

Additionally, the article Why Trump? Why Now? refers to one of the articles as "one of the best things I’ve ever read on the Web, period, and which I’ll quote at length", which hardly seems dismissable as a passing mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calvinballing (talk • contribs) 22:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Three Best Sources

1292simon rightly points out that many of the references in this article are passing mentions, and asks for the three best sources. I suggest the following three:

1) https://www.vox.com/2016/8/31/12729482/fda-epipen-pharma-regulations This VOX piece is a direct response to an essay that Scott Alexander published at Slate Star Codex

2) https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/the-scourge-of-cost-disease This Washington Examiner article begins "I frequently point you to the writings of Scott Alexander", and continues to quote Alexander at length throughout the article.

3) https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/05/why-the-depression-gene-fiasco-is-bad-news-for-science/ This Mother Jones article, after introducing the topic and main points, cites, "This all comes via Scott Alexander, a psychiatrist who writes at Slate Star Codex."

Calvinballing (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Calvinballing, Thank you for providing the sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I was coming here to say, the passing mentions need stripping out - they're just WP:REFBOMBing - David Gerard (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

OK - I stripped all the passing mentions, and the many self-sources about things that just haven't been noted. The Washington Examiner piece - as well as being in a yellow-rated source that should be attributed if used at all - was a frankly frothing opinion piece; the NR piece is of similar political leanings, but is a much more sober news article, and fully covers the WE claims. I left the two academic cites, though I haven't checked to see if they're substantive or just passing mentions too - David Gerard (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

There are around 100 hits on Google Scholar; some of them may be useful for augmenting the "Reception" section. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

David Gerard, it's no surprise that the NYT journalist involved is Cade Metz. Now-banned Cla68 used to use him as a channel to factwash his speculative attacks on people here. Guy (help!) 09:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Metz wrote a SSC article because he's a fan - he wrote a puff piece! However, there is zero chance you're going to have the NYT profile the founder of a subculture that's newsworthy for being highly influential across the highest echelons of the tech world and increasingly so in politics, and not use the guy's name - that he spread across the internet himself for many years. While it's correct not to use it here until it's RS material, I'd expect it to be soon if SSC fans keep trying to get coverage for this the way they have in the past day - David Gerard (talk) 09:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Note that Washington Examiner and Mother Jones are the very opposite of good sources. Guy (help!) 09:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Specifically, I'm pretty sure we can't rely on yellow-rated sources (WE) as evidence of notability. MJ, however, is a green-rated source on WP:RSP - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Removed WE yet again - absolutely unsuitable for a BLP-sensitive topic in particular. Removed UnHerd - this is just a blog post - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Last name

The administrators' reverting (and deleting of revision history) of edits including Scott Alexander's last name is not clearly justified.

WP:DOX does not justify the removal of the edit since it addresses conduct between editors while Scott in this case is not an editor but the subject of an article.

WP:BLP may be relevant but clarification is needed on exactly how it applies. It appears WP:BLPNAME is the most relevant section here. It advises that "when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context".

It is true that Scott does not use his last name on his blog. However, he has used his full name when republishing one of his blog articles as a chapter in a book published by a reputable scholarly imprint (see the book cited in my reverted edit, p. 235 or ch. 14.3). This use of his last name in a published book does not appear consistent with the "intentional concealment of name" and lack of "wide dissemination" that the policy refers to.

Furthermore, Scott's long-term active writing on the blog clearly qualifies him as a high profile individual, and as the author of the blog he is obviously heavily involved with it. This is the opposite of the " loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons" to which the policy is supposed to apply most strongly.

In light of the above, Scott's full name should be mentioned at the start of the article in accordance with MOS:LEGALNAME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.37.217 (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

"WP:DOX does not justify the removal of the edit since it addresses conduct between editors while Scott in this case is not an editor but the subject of an article. "

Yes it does. According to WP:DOX, "This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. ". Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The book is pretty telling, yes. OTOH, WP:BLP tends to erring on the side of caution. I think that unless and until the NYT piece appears, this blog is of marginal citable notability in any case (and I wouldn't have put this article live myself) - so I think there's no harm in holding off a while - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That said, the book cite should definitely be present in the article as a published work - David Gerard (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

what's the book citation? the edit history got purged... BrokenSegue 14:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the book should count as wide dissemination; it's very clear that in the majority of cases where something is attributed to him, his name has been concealed. "Wide dissemination" here means "in the portions of his public presence that reach the most people". The book is not the portion of his public presence that reaches the most people. He fears that his name will be found by his patients and by harassers, and patients and harassers are not going to track down this book, but they are going to Google "Scott Alexander" and find a Wikipedia article. And that's the point, so it counts as being "intentionally concealed".

The rules about revealing names are not supposed to allow you to signal-boost the name from "concealed most of the time" to "the first thing that shows up in a Google search". The fact that "concealed most of the time" is not "concealed literally all of the time" shouldn't change this.

I'd also add that "published by a reputable scholarly imprint" weighs against counting the book as wide dissemination of his name. Being published by a reputable imprint is good if we're discussing whether the book counts as a reliable source, but whether something counts as wide dissemination depends on reach, not quality. A book published by a scholarly imprint has less reach than one published by a popular imprint (even if it has more quality), and vastly less reach than a web source. Ken Arromdee (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Also has a pile of medical research publications. Not enough to hit notability, but he's referred to them in SSC previously. - David Gerard (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Relevant to decision of whether to publish his full name (assuming this article remains live), I'm sympathetic to the arguments offered by Robby Soave in Reason:

"If Alexander did something that was notable or significant—other than just being a guy with a good blog—a reporter would have to consider naming him. But, by all accounts, the Times story was a puff piece about how great Slate Star Codex was. If that's true, it seems fairly inadvisable to move forward with it despite the subject's vehement objection. [...] Alexander [is] truly anonymous: Amateur internet sleuths can uncover [his] identities fairly quickly. Alexander concedes this point but thinks there's a difference between being relatively (though not completely) anonymous and being named in a New York Times piece."

There is likewise a difference between being cited as an author in a book, and having your full name show up in a Wikipedia article. I have to err on the side of non-disclosure here, given the legitimacy of his concerns about the importance of anonymity to his professional practice. TheBlueCanoe 23:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In terms of whether or not the book (or medical articles for that matter) qualify as noteworthy, I would also note that this article is *not* an article about Scott Alexander, it's an article about Slate Star Codex.The two are obviously heavily inter-related, and relevance to one is obviously at least somewhat relevant to the other, but it is still a relevant distinction.g.j.g (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The article in the scholarly anthology is a reprint of a Slate Star Codex post---the fact that a blog entry has also been published in this context is clearly relevant to the blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.37.217 (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur - it's very much academic notability for the blog, and should be in the academic section of the article - David Gerard (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability

I think the real problem with this article and its subject is: it shouldn't really have been pushed live. The cites in there are thin gruel indeed for notability, and not substantially better than the version that was deleted at AFD.

If it gets the NYT piece, sure ... maybe ... assuming that single piece, plus a pile of chaff, reaches the bar. But it's not clear if that's a happener. This looks like a WP:TOOSOON, and I suggest we should consider shoving it back to draft until notability is actually clear - David Gerard (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

There is now lots of significant coverage in reliable sources, so the only possible reason to discount those sources would be WP:BLP1E and/or WP:NOTNEWS. But the subject is not low-profile (under his pseudonym, at least) by any means. The slew of articles would not have been written if he were just some random nobody. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I feel Scott Alexander is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. I feel the mention in Reason alone establishes notability (and, yes: I didn’t see a compelling argument why Reason wouldn’t establish notability brought up when this was last discussed); I feel the mention in National Review also, in and of itself established notability. I don’t think a source being in a yellow box in WP:RSP means the source can’t be used to establish notability (If I am wrong on this matter, please point me to WP:AfD discussion where a “yellow” source did not establish notability). In addition, there is a 121-word, i.e. non-trivial mention in the American Press Institute. Furthermore, I feel the article in Mother Jones may not in and of itself establish notability, but considering it is a 1,056 word article which has about 600 words based directly on information from a Slate Star Codex blog posting, it definitely cements notability. With those articles, I would vote “keep” in an AfD discussion without hesitation. SkylabField (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. The quality and quantity of citations across mainstream media and academia is staggering, making him meet WP:AUTHOR #1 ("widely cited by peers") IMO even before this whole thing blew up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yep. In terms of the “Is a National Review article enough for something to survive WP:AfD” question, I would say yes based on previous AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Menace_in_Europe:_Why_the_Continent's_Crisis_Is_America's,_Too (the “Delete” votes completely ignored the National Review article); Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/America-Lite:_How_Imperial_Academia_Dismantled_Our_Culture_(and_Ushered_in_the_Obamacrats) (“It appears the reviews in the National Review and Commentary Magazine are completely legit and in and of themselves are enough to establish notability”); Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Magdalen_Berns (A good discussion about whether National Review, in an of itself, establishes notability, saying biased sources can establish notability. The delete arguments pointed out Ms. Berns was published in the “Corner” [i.e. blog] section of National Review. Slate Star Codex, however, was published in the “News” section of National Review.) Some other National Review related AfD discussions: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jim_geraghty Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jennifer_Morse Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gatestone_Institute. I’m not a big fan of a lot of their content, but they do establish notability. SkylabField (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The National Review article seems to be about the single event, so it shouldn't count, because of WP:BLP1E. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)