User:Foobarnix/Article builder 1

Coordinates: 43°28′36″N 110°45′48″W / 43.47667°N 110.76333°W / 43.47667; -110.76333
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Foobarnix

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Foobarnix (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 14 October 2015 (final version of Karina Longworth controversy and Talk page correspondence with other WP editors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests

I am in disagreement with another editor about notability of an article. This is the timeline:

  • 16:09, 1 March 2011—I created the article Karina Longworth
  • 16:22, 1 March 2011—(13 minutes later) Notability tag placed on article by User:Ttonyb1
  • 16:32, 1 March 2011—Asked Ttonyb1 to advise me on how to fix the notability problem. See User talk:Ttonyb1#Karina Longworth
  • 13:37, 2 March 2011—Having received no response from Ttonyb1, and after making links to Karina Longworth from other Wikipeia articles that already referenced her, and then reviewing Wikipedia:Notability (people), I removed the notability tag.
  • 15:17, 2 March 2011—Notability tag again placed on article by Ttonyb1
  • 09:59, 3 March 2011—Again asked Ttonyb1 to advise me on how to fix the problem. This time I included a detailed outline of why I believe the notability criteria are satisfied. See User talk:Ttonyb1#Notability of Karina Longworth
  • 13:07, 3 March 2011—This time Ttonyb1 responded with the single line
I again suggest you re-read WP:BIO and concentrate meeting the criteria using reliable sources.

At this point I am still in the dark about what is wrong with my sources. I believe I have shown the person to be notable. Ttonyb1 does not agree. I will abide by whatever an arbitrator says. I am not going to try to revert anything or remove the tag again. If the article ends up being deleted—I suspect that is where this is going—so be it.--Foobarnix (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Citations that might help

I was in the middle of analyzing and assessing these citations when the shitstorm struck. Some of my references are directory sites; these must be eliminated. Some below are also. Some are blogs; but not all blogs are totally useless.

cofounder/former editor-in-chief-of Cinematical.com. She currently edits the daily film culture blog SpoutBlog
By Scott Macaulay on Monday, December 22nd, 2008; Confirms that she was Currently the editor of Spoutblog on this date

External links for Longworth

Deletions & tags

Speedy deletion is a tool which can easily be overused. Since speedy deletion removes a page without discussion, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete if there is any plausible reason that the article should be kept. In particular, an article should not be tagged for speedy delete using A7 for not being notable (in your opinion): an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, it only has to pass the much lower test of asserting importance or significance (whether it actually is notable is a subject for an AfD discussion, not a speedy deletion). Consider using a Notability tag instead of a speedy delete tag. Also, an article should not be tagged for speedy deletion if it's possible that it might be improved into an article which should be kept. Pay attention to the guideline "Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete." It is not a rule of Wikipedia that an article has to be perfect the instant it's first posted; that's why we have edits.

Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author. Found this at WP:New pages patrol.

Disputed notability

This article appears to have been tagged for notability issues. The sources provided need to be checked against Wikipedia criteria for reliable and verifiable sources at WP:RS and WP:V. In its current cast, the article appears to be little more than a CV (resumé). Kudpung (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful to me if the individual references were tagged with what is wrong (or right) with them. For example, one could say
  • ref 1, the book, is out of print and unclear if it has sold any copies (or whatever it is that is that is supposed to be wrong with that particular reference).
  • ref 3 establishes that Longworth did work at radio show and this ref does help.
I just made up these examples to suggest the kind of info I need to fix the notability. Would more references help, or is it the quality of the refs that is the problem? It is clear to me that the subject is notable and I find it astonishing that other people do not, but I guess I have not proved it.--Foobarnix (talk) 08:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that Ttonyb1 has made a point by point response to my comments on his talk page. I will, as soon as I have time, attempt a point by point analysis—although I must admit that I do agree with some of his points. BTW, I notice that I neglected to sign my long discussion on his talk page. Sorry--Foobarnix (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Notablility criteria for Karina Longworth

Below is the initial defense of notability which I placed on Ttonyb1's talk page on 09:58, 3 March 2011. I copy most of it here because I want a record of it to refer to.--Foobarnix (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

When I did not get any response to my previous request to you for advice on how to establish notability of this article, I reviewed the article, and in good faith removed the notability tag which you had placed on it. I was particularly puzzled as to how anyone could have established that the article lacked notability when it had only existed for exactly 13 minutes when you placed the tag. When you did not respond to my first request for clarification, I quite honestly doubted whether you had read the article.

You have again placed the notability tag on this article.

I have reviewed the page Wikipedia:Notability (people) and, using the information written there, have outlined below my reasons for believing that the criteria are satisfied. Please let me know where my reasoning is incorrect and what else I can do to establish notability. I worked very hard on researching this article.

She has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject.

  • These would including the Huffington Post, the New York Times, and Variety. These are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
  • She has appeared in a widely distributed documentary film representing the online film critic's viewpoint.
  • She is extensively covered in online media such as filmfocus.com and indieWIRE (indieWIRE is probably not entirely independent of the subject, but neither is it controlled by her).

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

  • There are 14 existing links to Karina Longworth in Wikipedia.
  • Longworth was one of the founders and a former editor of the film blog Cinematical, a film news and discussion blog now owned by AOL.. A Google check shows that there are up to 542 mentions of Cinematical in Wikipedia and refererences to Cinematical in the mainstream press are too numerous to mention. There really should be a Wikipedia article on Cinematical. Its notability would be very easy to establish.
  • Longworth was a former editor of SpoutBlog, another daily film blog now owned by indieWIRE. There are only a dozen or so mentions of SpoutBlog in Wikipedia, but again, mentions of this film blog in the mainstream press are very numerous.

This person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

  • She wrote a book, The Portable SpoutBlog ISBN 1448695716 , which is listed at Amazon, at Internet Book Database online database, at aNobii personal library catalog, at Goodreads personal library catalog (with a capsule review), and numerous other book sources. This book provides a valuable historical resource of the many films it covers.
  • Longworth has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following of her film blog Vidiocracy.com. (If necessary, I can produce figures of how large her fan base is.) Vidiocracy provides an important historical record of the many films and independent films that Longworth has reviewed.
  • Longworth is a frequent contributor to rottentomatoes.com, a resource widely consulted by filmgoers, and another important historical record of films and film criticism.
  • Longworth has contributed articles to many mainstream national magazines as mentioned in article.
Foobarnix (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2011
Response – I shall address your comments. First I'll ignore your fluff about not reading the article and the time it took to mark the article as non-notable. They really serve no purpose in a constructive discussion.
  • "She has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject." I do not see where she has been a subject of any of the article you mentioned. The HP bio was I assume written by her and therefore not a secondary source. Appearing in a documentary film is a primary source. I see no evidence of extensive coverage of her in the media.
  • "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Links to/from Wikipedia articles are hardly independent or in any way an indication of wide-coverage. Cinematical may be notable, but since notability is not inherited, unless there are numerous "non-trivial" articles about her, this does not prove her notability. Additionally, I see nothing in the article that supports her involvement with Cinematical. Supports is the important word here. That support needs to meet the criteria in WP:RS. "Being a former editor of SpoutBlog, is again not notable. I suggest you re-read WP:BIO and concentrate on meeting the criteria using [[WP:RS|Reliable sources}}
  • This person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. Rather than address each item individually, I just say none of these are an "enduring historical record" nor are they a widely recognized contribution.
I again suggest you re-read WP:BIO and concentrate meeting the criteria using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Response by foobarnix to the above response of ttonyb
I will respond to two of the above statements now; I will have more later. Notice that I have added some more citations to the article.
  • The HP bio was I assume written by her and therefore not a secondary source.
Do you have some evidence of this statement? Is the Huffington Post generally considered to be an unreliable source? If so, I will not use it in the future.
  • I see nothing in the article that supports her involvement with Cinematical.
  1. Footnote Huffington Post contains the statement "Karina Longworth is the co-founder and former editor-in-chief of the film blog Cinematical." But very well, let's assume this source is not independent and discount it.
  2. Footnote indieWIRE contains the statement "she is the co-founder/former editor of Cinematical". It could be asserted, I suppose, that Karina Longworth controls what indieWIRE prints--but would that not in itself argue for her importance and influence.
  3. Footnote Variety, June 21, 2007 contains the statement, "Spout's Karina Longworth, who helped to create major film blog Cinematical"
  4. Footnote Cineaste contains the statement "Karina Longworth is a film and new media blogger/critic and the cofounder/former editor-in-chief-of Cinematical.com".
  5. Footnate Slate January 3, 2011 (in a footnote) contains the statement, "Karina Longworth is the Film Editor at LA Weekly, a critic for the Village Voice, and a co-founder of Cinematical.com."
  6. I can supply more such sites.
I will have more to say about "widely recognized contributions" and other points later.

--Foobarnix (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears bios are editable by bloggers. See [1] I have no personal experience that the HP entry is self-posted; however, it would make sense that the HP would request that information from the author rather than trying to develop their own.
Again, Cinematical may be notable, but since notability is not inherited, unless there are numerous "non-trivial" articles about her, this does not prove her notability. ttonyb (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
To ttonyb: The second tag you added asks "Please help by adding reliable sources". Could you list for me which of the 15 current footnotes are unreliable sources. Perhaps I can support the basic facts of the article (wrote a book, co-founded Cinematical, edited Cinematical and Spout blogs, was on radio, currently at LA Weekly, wrote for Filmmaker magazine, etc.) with other sources that are recognized as reliable.--Foobarnix (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
It is not a matter of the sources being unreliable, but rather that they do not adequately support the article. Have you read WP:RS and do you understand the differences between WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY sources? ttonyb (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
To ttonyb: You now seem to be emphasising the word "adequately". Can I take it that you agree that some of the sources do support the article but that the support is not "adequate". I note that in WP:reliable sources that "Mainstream news sources are generally considered to be reliable" and that I have used mainstream new sources. Can I take it that you agree that the sources I have used are reliable? Please name the sources that you consider to be unreliable, if any (even if it is all 15 of them). Please be specific.
Or, alternatively, are you contending that the sources are reliable and somewhat support the article, but that they are not secondary sources?
You proved to me that the HP source could well have been written by the subject. So I will readily agree that that source is probably unreliable. I will remove it.
Can I suggest starting a new thread as we are getting squeezed into the margin. Thank you for your time.--Foobarnix (talk) 20:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a better suggestion, why don't you indicate which you feel are verifiable, independent, reliable secondary sources that support the article. I think you may be confusing primary and secondary sources. (Please reread WP:PRIMARY paying close attention to note #2 – It give examples of primary sources.) A combination of primary and secondary sources in an article OK, but there must be secondary sources that support the article. ttonyb (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Before I respond, could you please answer the question: When you say that my sources “do not adequately support the article” are you saying that these sources do not support the basic facts of the article (wrote a book, co-founded Cinematical, edited Cinematical and Spout blogs, was on radio, currently at LA Weekly, wrote for Filmmaker magazine, etc.), or are you saying that these sources do not support the assertion that the subject is notable (or both)?
Or are you now not so concerned with verifiability, and whether the sources support the article, but are just asserting that none of my sources are secondary? Thanks for your feedback.--Foobarnix (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
That they do not support Wikipedia based notability of which verifiability is a component. ttonyb (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
To ttonyb: OK, Here goes. The reference Indie films crave great reviews, Variety, June 21, 2007, by Anne Thompson contains the quote:
As the pool of well-paid print critics shrinks in size, the next generation of film fans may come to trust critic/bloggers like Appelo, Wells and Spout's Karina Longworth, who helped to create major film blog Cinematical, but wasn't paid enough to remain there, even after it was bought by AOL.
Spout hired her to write short and fast for its burgeoning film community, to help people to find movies to add to their NetFlix queue or order on-demand. "I'm not cut out for long-lead journalism," Longworth says. "I get more of a thrill out of the daily grind of blogging."
I assert that Variety is a verifiable reliable source, the quote adequately supports facts stated in the article, it supports her notability, and that it is a secondary source. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?--Foobarnix (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It is a good start, but it is a trivial mention of the Wikipedia article's subject (Longworth). It is a verifiable, reliable source that supports some facts in the article; however, it does not establish notability. Take a look at WP:BASIC. Be sure to read note #6 – granted the reference is more than a directory listing, it is still really a passing mention. If there was an in-depth article about the subject in Variety, that would be a reference that would help support notability. ttonyb (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
To ttonyb: You have said the above, "is a verifiable, reliable source that supports some facts in the article." I assert that the other citations support all of the facts in the article. Can I suggest that we now remove the refimproveBLP template. We can then concentrate on the issue of notability. Thank you for your time.--Foobarnix (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Supporting a fact in the article is not the same as providing support for notability. The purpose of the tag is to indicate that it needs more references to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
To ttonyb: But that is covered by the first tag which clearly says, "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." Adding the second tag is redundant, unless it is intended to address lack of reliable sources for some issue besides notability. Is there such an issue?--Foobarnix (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

{od}First remove all the links from the impressive list of 'sources' that are just articles the subject has written. Then remove links to blogs and remove links to directory sites. See what's left and then consider sending to WP:AfD where the community will decide. --Kudpung (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

to Kudpung:
  1. I have removed the reference Karina Longworth reviews, Little Gold Men Movie Blog at Vanity Fair, October 20, 2009. This seems to clearly fit your suggestion to remove "sources that are just articles the subject has written." (In this case, a list of such articles.) I also removed list of reviews at Las Vegas Weekly. It seem to me that all but one of the other sources are about the subject and not by her.
  2. The link The Carpetbagger The Awards Season Blog of the New York Times, 13 January 2009 is clearly a blog. If I remove it, I lose documentation of the statement, "the New York Times has called Longworth, 'freakishly smart'" Should I remove the statement and the link?
  3. I am glad to remove "links to blogs" but I am unclear as to what is considered a blog. The most likely candidate, indieWire is defined in Wikipedia as "a daily news site for the international independent film community." But it seems like a blog to me. On the other hand Now on the Endangered Species List: Movie Critics in Print, New York Times, April 1, 2008 seems to me to clearly be the online version of a newspaper. I don't think the other refs are blogs, but I honestly do not know. I will certainly trust your judgement on the distinction. I have removed the links to the blogs cinematical, spout, and Karina Longworth’s own blog Vidiocy in external references section.
  4. Should I remove the link Scott Simon of National Public Radio interviews Karina Longworth, Film Editor at LA Weekly, January 29, 2011? Is an interview by the subject or about the subject? Again, I do not know.
  5. What is a directory site and did I link to one?
to Kudpung and ttonyb: I have one general remark. Karina Longworth is the Film Editor of LA Weekly, one of the most prominent and read publications in a very major city; if her work itself is not enough to prove that she is notable, then I'm not sure what could. Should I continue to try show her notability?
Thank you so much for your help. It has been a real learning experience for me.--Foobarnix (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
One more remark about notability. When editors propose "articles for deletion" they often cite a lack of GHits. I just googled "Karina Longworth" and got over 30,000 hits for what it is worth.--Foobarnix (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There are only 351 GHits. The initial Google numbers are notoriously incorrect and one must go to the last page for the correct counts – in this case page 4. Also , see WP:GHITS. ttonyb (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The remaining refs

If the "the New York Times has called Longworth, 'freakishly smart'" then we need a link to the NYT article itself. Otherwise anyone can suggest a newspaper said something or other. When we have it, we need to estqblish the context - was it in an article about the subject herself, or was it just a very fleeting mention in article about something else? Wikipedia generally does not accept blogs as reliable sources because anyone can write what they like on a blog, and anyone can comment on a blog. A blog s really only one step up from an internet forum. Exceptions are blogs of esrablished newsppers and TV news networks where the content is subject to the same rigorous editorial controls as the non electronic media. I don't personally doubt the subject's notability, but the article must satisfy the encyclopedia's requirements. Kudpung (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Exceptions are blogs of established newspapers". This is such a case. The link is The Carpetbagger and is very short. It is an official blog of the NY Times. I only included it to support that one quote. But it is not very important in any case.
to Kudpung: At this point I would like to have this article nominated for deletion so that it is sent "to WP:AfD where the community will decide." as you suggested on 08:59, 8 March 2011. Would it be appropriate for Kudpung to do that. However, please do not misunderstand me and tag it for "speedy deletion"--Foobarnix (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Boy, I just don't see the depth of references needed to support an article. I see a number of examples of her work and some passing mentions of her, but I fail to see any in-depth coverage of her. Are there any articles written about her? Has she won any awards for her writing? As far as nominating for AfD, I do not think it would survive, certainly not with these references. ttonyb (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Can we just nominate it for deletion as Kudpung suggested on 08:59, 8 March 2011 and see what happens.--Foobarnix (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Off Square Theatre Company

Off Square Theatre Company (OSTC) is a professional theatre company based at 240 South Glenwood in Jackson, Wyoming. The company was founded in 1998 with the mission to "ignite the imagination and spark the soul through theatre".

The company presents plays, concerts, comedy, drama, puppet theatre, and youth musicals, as well as engaging in a broad range of classes and workshops in acting, singing, and theatre arts with world class teachers. OSTC works extensively with local schools, libraries and other community organizations.[1] The company is especially active in children's theatre.[2]

References

  1. ^ jacksonholetraveler: Off Square Theatre Company
  2. ^ Jackson Hole News & Guide: Kids shine in Off Square Theater’s Annie, November 16, 2011

External links

43°28′36″N 110°45′48″W / 43.47667°N 110.76333°W / 43.47667; -110.76333

Category:Theatre companies in Wyoming Category:Performing groups established in 1998

Wikimedia report

Below are excerpts from a March 2011 report by Sue Gardner who runs the Wikimedia Foundation

What We've Learned

Here’s what we think the Editor Trends Study tells us: Between 2005 and 2007, newbies started having real trouble successfully joining the Wikimedia community. Before 2005 in the English Wikipedia, nearly 40% of new editors would still be active a year after their first edit. After 2007, only about 12-15% of new editors were still active a year after their first edit. Post-2007, lots of people were still trying to become Wikipedia editors. What had changed, though, is that they were increasingly failing to integrate into the Wikipedia community, and failing increasingly quickly. The Wikimedia community had become too hard to penetrate.

These general patterns also emerged in the other languages we studied.

The below chart from the study shows this quite clearly for the English Wikipedia. What it shows is the number of active editors (blue) plotted against the percentage of editors who joined in that month who are still active one year later (red).[2] Please note that these trends hold true even when looking at new users who have completed at least 50 edits – it’s not just an increase in experimentation and vandalism.

Our new study shows that our communities are aging, probably as a direct result of these trends. I don't mean that the average age of editors is increasing: I'm talking about tenure. Newbies are making up a smaller percentage of editors overall than ever before, and the absolute number of newbies is dropping as well. That's a problem for everyone, because it means that experienced editors are needing to shoulder an ever-increasing workload, and bureaucrat and administrator positions are growing ever-harder to fill. Experienced Wikipedians have observed those changes for years: this is the first time there’s been data supporting what they’ve said.

Based on this and other research (links below), here’s what we think is happening: As successful communities get really big, they naturally suffer growing pains. New people flood in, creating an Eternal September effect, in which the existing community struggles to integrate the newbies while at the same time striving to preserve the ability to do its work. It does that by developing self-repair and defense mechanisms – which in our case, turned out to be things like bot- and script-supported reverts, deletions, user warnings, and complex policies. All those mechanisms are obviously helpful – after all, they were developed for a reason, in response to real problems. And they do their job: they do successfully help experienced editors preserve and maintain quality. But they’ve also made it harder and harder for new people to join us, which in turn seems to have made experienced editors' work harder as well. People tell me that editing back in 2001 or 2003 or 2005 was more rewarding —and more fun!— than it is today. I believe that some of that is ordinary nostalgia. But I think some of it is true.

Openness Begets Participation

I believe we need to make editing fun again for everybody: both new editors and experienced editors. Some of you will question whether we can do that without compromising quality. My personal opinion is that that’s a false choice, and a trap. Quality and openness go hand in hand: if that weren't true, Wikipedia wouldn't —it couldn’t!— exist. Wikipedia is the largest and best and most-used informational resource ever compiled in human history. Openness works.

So. Where quality assurance mechanisms hurt good-faith newbies, the answer to that is better quality assurance mechanisms, which will support quality while doing less unintended damage. Bringing in more new contributors will lighten the work load, and make the whole endeavor more pleasurable, for everyone. I also believe that we need to turn up the volume on activities that help acculturate new users and that make everyone feel appreciated and welcome.

Here are some questions we’re thinking about:

Should new editors be encouraged to share more about themselves on their userpages, so that good-faith people can be identified more easily and given support and encouragement? Should we build more automated mechanisms for editors to express appreciation for each other? Should we build automated tools for connecting new editors with experienced mentors? Do we need better tutorials? Should there be improved semi-public draft spaces, like on the Russian Wikipedia, to give new articles a chance to incubate rather than being deleted? What else should we do?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Foobarnix/Article_builder_1&oldid=685772388"