An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.
Note: Previous review at Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA2 was withdrawn, and the article was restored to the nominations queue. — Newslingertalk 05:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Nominated by Viztor (talk) at 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Aaron Swartz is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Aaron Swartz is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a collaborative attempt at improving Wikimedia content with the help of openly licensed materials and improving Wikipedia articles related to openness (including open access publishing, open educational resources, etc.). If you would like to participate, visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
@Nemo bis: I don't see the creation of a person's Wikipedia account and the topics of their Wikipedia edits as something deserving of being in a Wikipedia article. It's just not notable. Plus, the secondary source given is from a blog by a Wikipedia editors about Wikipedia editors which seems hardly significant... MarkH21 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Agree. While it might be notable to us, the Wiki community, here on talk pages, it's a different story in articles. Jonathunder (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Keep it in. Aaron's great interest was in publishing free content via the web. Although WP wasn't a big part of this (he favoured other platforms) it is still an important part of this. One of the obvious questions which any future historian of the web would ask about him is, "He was active at the same time, was he involved with WP?" Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I would still disagree though. His interest in publishing free content can be attested by his other contributions and his role strictly as a Wikipedia editor is not significant here. MarkH21 (talk) 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
It's just impossible to mention his run for the WMF board and his article on Wikipedia participation without saying he had been involved in Wikipedia for years. Otherwise you're artificially changing the story from "insightful insider" to "random passer-by seeks visibility". We could remove or summarise the entire Wikipedia section, no opinion on that. The choice should be based on sources, though. Nemo 17:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, well in that case I would favor deletion of the entire section. The only secondary source I could find on his edit-counting blog post was the summary given on Business Insider. Otherwise, the section is based on primary sources and the Wikipedian blog, doesn't seem particularly significant, and distracts from the more significant contributions in an already-long article. MarkH21 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
The subject's Wikipedia participation is noteworthy in a biographical context (notability does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article). This content should be retained.- MrX 🖋 12:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, nobody argued that WP:N determines the content. However, it really doesn't seem noteworthy in a biographical context to anyone except part of the Wikipedia community. Otherwise we might as well find everyone who has a Wikipedia page and add when they created their accounts on Wikipedia and other sites. MarkH21 (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
His writing about Wikipedia published elsewhere could be included, and perhaps his unsuccessful bid for the board, but work as an ordinary volunteer editor doesn't belong in this article. Jonathunder (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Should people's reaction to his death be part of this article or in a separate one?
It seems a majority of the sections are not about Aaron himself, rather what people did in his name. Does this belong to the biography? Should it be put in a different article? Viztor (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Note, I've removed the RfC tag here since there was no previous discussion about this before the RfC was started (see link for more info). (Ping for Viztor, who started it). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I will be reviewing this article. :-) Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC) Note: Having contrasted this article with the [article criteria], I have deemed this article to be worthy of GA status. Puddleglum2.0 (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)