Talk:Aaron Swartz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Disobedience Award[edit]

I think it should be mentioned.

"Disobedience Award, run by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The award was founded partly to commemorate Aaron Swartz, a former MIT student" [1] Also: [2] [3] [4]

Wikipedia participation[edit]

@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?[edit]

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)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Puddleglum2.0 (talk · contribs) 20:11, 21 September 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)

Puddleglum2.0 has withdrawn this good article review. The Aaron Swartz article is being sent back to the good article nominations queue, and editors are welcome to review it for compliance with the good article criteria using these instructions. — Newslinger talk 05:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aaron Swartz/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lizzy150 (talk · contribs) 10:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Viztor:, I'll be reading and reviewing this article shortly. Lizzy (talk 10:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)