> > Been there. Done that. It isn't only women's topics. Because Justin >> Bieber is unpopular and actively disliked by some people, (Though I guess >> you could argue this example relates to a topic of interest to many young >> girls) there was an attempt to merge >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber_on_Twitter in >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Bieber , with >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Justin_Bieber#Merger_proposal making >> it clear the reason is "I don't like this." The article had about 100 >> sources around the time the article was nominated for merge. Lady Gaga, >> the most followed person on Twitter and woo hoo female to boot! has had >> other people ask why the article isn't deleted. See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lady_Gaga_on_Twitter#Request_for_deletion:_Is_this_page_really_relevant.3F. >> I have another topic I wrote on where the regional women's stuff should >> be generic to all women playing the sport or to the region. If neither >> article currently exist, [[WP:SOFIXIT]] by creating the new and relevant >> articles. >> >> Information is power and what is on Wikipedia has the potential to shape >> greater understanding around issues. Thus, a battle for what should and >> should not be there. >> > > Wow, YMMV, but I think it's really odd to have whole long articles devoted > to a Twitter account. What is and isn't broken out from "main topic" > articles is often controversial, whether criticism sections or detailed > information on specifically consequential periods, but an article on a > Twitter account is an outlier in my reading experience. > > One of the arguments on the talk page for Fanny Imlay was that the sources > cited included information about her only incidentally in the course of > covering other people, as opposed to being primarily about her (presumably > with the exception of the biography). I don't know enough about the subject > or the sources to know if this is the case, but it's an argument that might > apply to "Justin Bieber on Twitter." The articles discussing his Twitter > usage are really about Justin Bieber and his behavior, not his Twitter > account. See for example[1], a short mention in Ashton Kutcher's bio about > his Twitter use. Kutcher is also among the most prominent users of that > service in its history, but there is no article devoted to it. Rather than > seeing the merge proposal as an example of "I don't like it," I think the > fact that it failed demonstrates the power of a gigantic fanbase to distort > normal practice on a wiki. >
One of the problems I personally have with those articles is that it stretches to definition of Wikipedia as a summary resource. If we aim to be exhaustive, in the way those articles represent, where does it end? As Nathan says; this is a prime example of POV pushing/distortion. If I wrote a lengthy article about the details of messages Dudley Clarke sent back and forth to John Bevan during World War II (and article I could quite easily source) the community would, quite rightly, delete it. Tom
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
