Talk:Girl Geek Dinners

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Girl Geek Dinners was copied or moved into Girl Geeks Scotland with this edit on 10 April 2010. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Links[edit]

If you are going to allow one group access and provide a link then why remove the links to all the others... There are a LOT of groups each on individual url's. Either include all or none of them. Alternatively consider just linking to the site to find the full up to date list of groups.

Also what is considered not too close? How many degrees of seperation do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.226.78 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 12 April 2010

Hello, not sure who exactly your query is addressed to, but I'll have a go... Links were removed because Wikipedia is not a link directory. We link to other articles in Wikipedia and, where appropriate and in a very limited manner, we link to external websites. I'm not sure what you mean by "If you are going to allow one group access..." - could you clarify that? Access to what? Which group?

By group I mean you have scotland GGD group with their link there but none of the others, would it not be more sensible to point people to the comprehensive list on the GGD main site instead. They obviously want to keep things central.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.226.70 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 13 April 2010

"Also what is considered not too close?" - again not 100% sure what you mean. Are you referring to the conflict of interest notice at the top of the article that begins "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection..."? People are generally discouraged from working on articles about themselves, or people they are related to, or work for, or companies or organisations they work for, that kind of thing. I fear I haven't answered your questions, so please don't hesitate to ask again.--Beloved Freak 16:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the not too close conflict question, who could they as a group ask to review this other than Wikipedia staff to ensure it is balanced? I don't quite understand how this is going to work. Does it mean anyone who has attended one of these events is "too close" as described in the header at the top of the page? I don't get it. This isn't a company it's a community group as such does this mean that no one from the community can add to this page?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.226.70 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 13 April 2010

Hello again, when you make posts, could you sign them, by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your comment, then we can see who has said what and when. There is an internal link to Girl Geeks Scotland, because there is an article here at Wikipedia about that. Whether or not there should be... I don't know. I'm not sure that two separate articles are needed, and they may be merged in the future. We don't have a long list of external links to other groups/chapters, because Wikipedia's an encyclopedia, not a directory. If people want to find out the various groups, they can use google, or go to the main site. If you think that having an article on the Scotland one is undue weight, then that would be an argument for merging that article into this one. Remember, Wikipedia's not here to let people know how to get involved in things, or where to go or contact details or anything like that, just to provide an encyclopedic overview. If you think that other groups should have separate articles, you would have to demonstrate that they meet our guidelines for inclusion, that they are not only notable, but independently notable from this article. We'd be looking for significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. I'm not sure who you mean when you say "They obviously want to keep things central" - Wikipedia? GGD? If you mean the latter, then unfortunately that's not really relevant here.

It shouldn't really be a case of "they as a group" asking Wikipedia staff to review this since "they as a group" shouldn't be writing the article in the first place. Unfortunately that has happened, so now we just have to deal with it the best we can. And just to clear up any confusion - there is no "Wikipedia staff". Well, there is, but you're unlikely to find them writing articles. Editors contributing here are just ordinary volunteers. Ensuring things are balanced is one of the reasons that we strongly discourage people from writing about things close to them. As to "too close" - no I don't mean anyone in the wider community. We wouldn't discourage someone from writing about Manchester United because they go to their matches, or Cambridge University because they once attended. I'm talking about people who have founded the organisation, or chapters of it, or who are responsible for running it or organising events or promoting it in any way. I'm sure you can see why regular Wikipedia editors might be suspicious of their intent, and why, with the best will in the world, it is very hard for anyone to write about subjects they are personally invested in, with a neutral point of view. This has become quite a long reply, I hope some of this makes sense. Regards, --Beloved Freak 10:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that this group is notable since they have chapters around the world and news coverage by the BBC. I created this article, and I am not involved in managing or organizing GGD in any way. -- Angorian (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral POV?[edit]

Is there something specific on this page that seems not to be neutral POV? I ask because the article seems to only be stating facts, not opinions. Is there something that could be added to solve whatever the problem is? I know quite a bit about Girl Geek Dinners, so I'd be happy to add whatever people think is missing. Spock of Vulcan (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion[edit]

The founder Sarah Lamb doesn't have a profile and I would like to create one as I believe she is noteworthy enough to be included as she is doing work with ITU which is part of the United Nations and has been quoted multiple times in the press around women tech subjects however there is another notable Sarah Lamb who is a ballet dancer and who is not the same person and I don't know how to split the profiles to make it easy to find and link to the right one... Can anyone help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.245.127.15 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this link and several similar relating to appearing on an ITU panel https://itunews.itu.int/En/2591-High-Level-Dialogue.note.aspx but she doesn't seem to have done anything else apart from Girl Geeks. She seems to fall a little short on notability at the moment. Can you provide other evidence for why she is notable? Philafrenzy (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]