User talk:Daniel C. Boyer/Katherine Jacobson

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

User:Kat created an "case" article Katherine Jacobson around the 1st of august 2003. The article was a totally made up one, with no reality whatsoever.

User:Kat made it to make a point about unverifiable assertions in the Daniel C. Boyer debate. Other chose to understand it as a "me-too-I-can-have-a-biography article".

The article was swiftly listed on vfd for being a biography of an unknown person (case stated similar to Daniel one).

  • Keep in encyclopedic space : none

What was finally done : the article was redirected to a user page.

Current situation : The user page was later deleted. The article redirect on this very page.

Note : most editors accepted the redirection quite well. It was mentionned many real people still had redirect from the main space to the user space, as it is common practice to do so when a newbie create a user page in the main space by mistake. Most editors don't seem to object to that situation. One indicated the existence of the redirect in the main space was a problem to them (listed by google)

Anthère


Article[edit]

Katherine Jacobson (born November 11, 1964 in Owatonna, Minnesota) is a multitalented American artist who has been influential in photography, journalism, theater, and music.

While attending Coe College in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Jacobson served as Facilities Manager for the Monogan Theater, an independent stage operated by students and members of the community (which has since closed). She was also active in the Studio 89 radio theater program, where she was best known for producing and directing a number of radio plays, many showcasing newly-written scripts addressing key social issues. Among these was "Steffanie", a highly controversial radio play examining the limits of social acceptance of diversity.

Jacobson served for a number of years as a reporter and columnist for the Cedar Rapids Gazette covering a variety of local issues. In 1998 she left the newspaper.

Her best-known work is a series of photographs of men in the U.S. armed forces, exhibited as a group titled simply Soldiers and Power. The entire series of 24 images appeared at Gallery 51 East (http://gallery51east.com) in 1999 and has since toured through the U.S. and internationally, appearing mainly at university galleries and minor museums. The series was heralded as fusion of reportage and fashion photography.

More recently, Jacobson has worked as a photographer for private and commercial clients. She has also made a number of guest appearances as a vocalist and 2nd fiddle with the Killer Hayseeds, a bluegrass/rock fusion band.

Comments on vfd[edit]

The conversation went off on a tangent somewhat, as people initially assumed that the page was accurate.

  • Katherine Jacobson for all the same reasons as the deletion of Daniel C. Boyer. Angela 23:27, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems it's a redir now. So problem solved? --Menchi 23:37, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
    • Not solved, delete. Allowing any autobiographical content and tributes to random people are bound to destroy Wikipedia. Daniel Quinlan 00:04, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
      • This has happened many times before. A new user comes along and, not realising our policies against self-promotion, creates an article about themselves. There must be a hundred redirects like this to the user namespace. I say keep them all. -- Tim Starling 08:07, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
        • Other than my concern that this still gives a benefit to people who self-promote, my aethetic objection is that these redirects still show up in search results which is non-optimal. There really needs to be a way to phase out redirects. The redirect talk page has more on this. Daniel Quinlan 08:34, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • I created it; you may delete it with extreme prejudice and without delay. The whole page is patent nonsense without a shred of truth. I created it for rhetorical reasons during the discussion regarding Daniel C. Boyer. While many saw it as a me-too-I-can-have-a-biography article, it was in fact written to demonstrate a point about unverifiable assertions. Kat 14:49, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I really question this kind of conduct, in which false information is deliberately added to Wikipedia, however noble the intentions may be. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:18, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
      • I don't see the problem with deleting the rest of them too, they're just legacy items. - Hephaestos 17:18, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
        • If you mean deleting all redirects to user namespace, that's a very bad idea, as it would break hundreds of links on Talk pages. (Of course, the best thing would be to use an automated process to update all these links; then the redirects could be deleted.) --Zundark 20:41, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Martin and Kat[edit]

For context, consider this discussion on user talk:MyRedDice

You missed the point. Kat 23:30, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Your point is that if Boyer has an article, why can't you, I would guess? Martin
If I must spell it all out for you, the page was patent nonsense, Martin. Just like much of Boyer's.
Point out anything that was "patent nonsense." --Daniel C. Boyer 14:37, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)
All very plausible but impossible to verify. Even the name isn't my real name. It's already on VfD and I'll add a comment later clarifying the rhetorical intent (only) of the page so it can be deleted. And that's that, I'm recusing myself from the whole embroglio at this point. Best regards, Kat 23:51, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Similarities and differences with Daniel Boyer case[edit]

Due to the double standard concerning Kat's creation of a page about herself, I have used the same standard used on her page on this page. I hope you all understand the hypocrisy here. MB 03:00, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)

Kat's case is rather different, since:
  1. She created the page, not me
  2. She created it to make a point about this article
  3. There isn't somewhere around 9 to 14 Wikipedians arguing that she's important enough to have an article about her.
But if you're going to make it a redirect, please finish the job by delinking it from all the other articles. It's not appropriate to have a link from an article redirecting to the user namespace unless it's clear from the context that it's a user page. -- Tim Starling 03:07, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
Will do, first thing in the morning. Bed now... MB 03:22, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)
I had a look, and there are four other linked articles; I think it's clear from context in all of them that it's a user page. - Hephaestos 03:31, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I disagree that Kat's case is any different and that it even should be treated differently.
  • There are also apparently literally hundreds of (now) user pages that redirect in the same way as Kat's.
  • Boyer originally created the page, even if you (Tim) restored it, and Boyer responsible for all of the self-aggrandizing activity that led us to here. If Boyer didn't create the original pge and link to himself (whichever version) a bunch of times, I sincerely doubt you (Tim) would have restored it as a stub.
  • We don't quite have 9 or 14 Wikipedian's arguing that Daniel C. Boyer is important enough to have an article, just that they don't want it to be deleted outright.
Redirecting the page does at least seem to resolve the stalemate for now, and to attempt to be completely fair, it is probably a reasonable compromise given the current status of the votes (although I still think it should be deleted, of course) and also the fact that it has been done so many times in the past. Now that I've said this, I'm sure I'm just inviting someone to revert MB's change. (I'm not sure compromise is in many Wikipedians' vocabulary, here.) It does give us the option of addressing the other user redirects as a whole if we want to discuss and debate those outside of the context of Mr. Boyer — thank goodness. Daniel Quinlan 03:55, Aug 4, 2003 (UTC)