Talk:Kathryn Cramer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Autobiography tizzy

I seemed to be #6 on Alvonruff's list of most popular ISFDB authors without a Wikipedia entry, and I'm not an easy subject, so I've started it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea, Kathryn. Please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not a good idea" violates civility and assumption of good faith. The article is non-controversial, there is no NPOV question at issue here, and it's absurd to require writers to seek third parties to submit routine corrections and citations. This page is filled with mean and petty dispute, all of which is pointless and merely calls wikipedia into disrepute. If the editors (or trolls) behind this controversy are simply concerned about WP:AUTO, you may affix my signature to Kathryn's edits of this page. I have no doubt that there are dozens of writers and editors who would be happy to do the same -- and to affix their actual names, not (as you do) a pseudonym. MarkBernstein 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As this is your second edit in Wikipedia, I would appreciate that rather than making assertions about how this project should be run and what is appropriate or not, you take a bit of time and learn a bit more about the project before doing so. I have placed some pointers in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I explained the reason for infrequently editing wikipedia in my keynote lecture at WikiSym 2006. I'm quite familiar with the project and how it should be run and I am confident that this is not how it should be run. Cramer has elsewhere offered an excellent discussion of the real needs of editors and scholars for material like this -- material which you would deny the community. The consequence, apparently, will be an imminent fork in which the experts will create a separate resource leaving the pseudonymous trolls to cultivate wikipedia. That's an undesirable outcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if you are familiar with this project you should be aware of our core policies, including "verifiability" and "neutral point of view". All information in an article, even the names of the subject's parents, should be verifiable by any reader. If the subject of an article adds informatoon which is known only to them then we are just taking their word for unverifiable facts. While the names of parents might be uncontroversial the principle is important. Suppose they claim to have held a certain position or received an award, should we just assume they are right? Further, can anyone be assumed to write a truly neutral article about his or herself? The answer is "no", we can't make that assumption. So we'd be happy if you or another person wrote a verifiable, neutral article about this subject. -Will Beback · † · 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has always been NPOV, and only a handful of facts have raised questions of verifiability. Some of the verifiability questions (like the parentage) are well founded. Others have been answered, but the sniping continues unabated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.228.152 (talk • contribs).

This isn't sniping. It's a review. As for neutrality, there were problems with the first version that Pleasantville created. We don't have to go into it. -Will Beback · † · 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: Look, whoever you are, this is absurd. Your requests for citations for my parentage academic degrees etc. and requests for citations when citations are already given (did you follow the LINK to the Hugo Semiprozine category? No. You didn't) These are essentially harassment.

Kathryn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 January 2007

I am sorry to hear you consider that harassment. Me and others have asked you not to edit your own article. You are welcome to provide material in this talk page. Please read our guidelines about autobiographies ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Try not to get carried away and bite her, Jossi. WP:AUTO is a useful guideline but not a bludgeon to smack people with. Obviously, a person is concerned that an article about them should represent them in a certain way. Let's work with that understanding and a bit more patience. Grace Note 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite web template

Let me introduce you to the {{cite web}} template:

{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2024-11-25 |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We have asked...

... that you do not edit your own article. But you chose to ignore our guidelines. May you consider stopping editing your article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidying

I've removed some material that struck me as definitely not notable or relevant, but I'm wondering whether there is a general notability concern. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So my blog is cited in the New York Times, Forbes, the BBC etc. and it's not notable? You are a hoot. What is notable?Pleasantville 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I only looked at the NYT piece, and it quoted you in relation to the Pakistan work, and in quoting you, mentioned your blog. That doesn't in and of itself make your blog notable. It also doesn't in and of itself make you notable.

It would help a lot if you'd tone down the insults you're doling out all over the place. It's actually not much of a hoot to me that I'm spending this time trying to sort this issue out. You shouldn't have created the page in the first place. If you are really notable, someone else would have done so. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much in the way of insults but I'd urge Kathryn to try to work with Slim, rather than feel she is someone to fight against. Slim's grasp of how things work here will be invaluable to you in getting things done. But Slim, the article is here now. Let's not jump up and down on the person concerned for creating it. Not everyone is clear on the "rules" here and people are obviously concerned to be represented in what seems to them fair terms. We do have articles on people who are not all that important, so it's sometimes difficult for an outsider to understand why they should not be included. Grace Note 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi GN, there have been comments elsewhere from Pleasantville that have been unhelpful; that's what I was referring to. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

... Such as calling editors that responded on a posting at WP:COI/N "semi-anonymous people acting like jerks", making sarcastic comments about "mind group", posting an attack piece in her blog in which he called these editors "a pack of officious trolls", and being dismissive to all comments made by others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of biblio section

The biblio section is way too long. I woud appreciate to know from the author, what would be a representative sampling of her work, rather the the whole collection of essays, reviews and other such as available here http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Kathryn%20Cramer

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the standard used at William Connolley should be applied. Of course, Dr Connolley is an admin here so he doesn't get much in the way of bullying from editors for editing his own article, but just about everything he's ever published seems to be on his list. Grace Note 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that William Connolley edited that article on his own, and I do not think that when he edited his article that he was an admin. In any case, I am asking the subject of this article to provide a shortlist of the most prominent works that she has published, as to not make this into a catalog. And if you think that the comments made to this person are "bullying" I would suggest that you explicitly say who and when so that it can be properly addressed. Such wide-ranging statements are not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think repeatedly making the same "request" constitutes bullying, Jossi. Littering an article with demands for sources could also be considered overaggressive. This now seems to be shifting the point of attack. Slow down. Chill out. Grace Note 07:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I

disagree with your assessment. Rather than passing judgment on the behavior of others, you can roll your sleeves and help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The list that Pleasantville added was taken directly from here, and I've shortened it a little, but I agree it should be shortened further. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the ISFDB bibio is that parts of it are wrong. I am not an easy bibliographic subject, so some of what I've put here is corrections to what's in the ISFDB. I don't disagree that the biblio could be shortened. If done 2 rounds of shortening it myself.

Also, if you are going to reference Gary Westfahl on hard sf as further reading, please also reference my chapter on Hard SF in the Cambridge Companion to SF: http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521816262_CCOL0521816262A018 (ed. Farah Mendlesohn & Edward James.Pleasantville 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If ISFDB is incorrect, Kathryn, it is not up to Wikipedia to fix it. You may want to contact the maintainers of that database to get these entries fixed. It may sound counterintuitive, but in Wikipedia we speak of "verifiability, not truth". See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the death of print. The titles pages of the printed books trump ISFDB. Yes? Or does Wikipedia had a rule against citing print sources? Regarding a reference for Harvard, see my bio on the Eastgate Systems website which has been that way since about 1994. http://www.eastgate.com/people/Cramer.html Pleasantville 02:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of a book is easily verifiable via its ISBN number. Follow this link, for example: ISBN 0-06113-154-7 , and use the Library of Congress catalog link there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not title. The issue is authorship. I have multiple books with title page credit but not cover credit. I take it you are not familiar with the term "title page bibliography". Also the online Library of Congress Catalog is incomplete.Pleasantville 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are these books you've edited or written? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The titles in question are anthologies which Cramer edited. 71.126.228.152 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether we should even be listing them in that case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue for inclusion on "cover credits" only, as per other authors biblio sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see the bibliography has grown again. Right now it doesn't distinguish works the subject has written from those that she's edited. Per above comments, I think we should remove he listings of edited books and mention them in the text instead. Some appear to be annuals so we can simply say that she co-edits annual "Best of..." anthologies. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You see because you are Wikistalking. You should stop that Wil.

The biblio was out of date. I added the 2007 books. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs).

Actually it's simply that I have this page on my watchlist. There are two guidelines I should remind you of: assume good faith and autobiography. Do you have a substantive response to my proposal? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[[1]] Get lost.

Demonstrate your good faith, Will, by refraining from vandalizing related web pages and removing this one from your watch list.

Conflict of Interest

I put a conflict of interest tag on this page, it seemed appropriate as the subject started the page and contributed most of the content. Notability also appears to be right on the line. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not in question, Daniel. See http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/20277/Kathryn_Cramer/index.aspx?authorID=20277 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's probably written by her too, though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability within the science fiction field is not in question. She is a multiple-time Hugo nominee, to name her most prominent claim to fame. She was a pioneer in hypertext; she is a name to conjure with in some circles. You are definitely verging on personal vendetta here, Slim. The question of self-editing is old news; let's all quit the griping, assume good will for parties on both sides, and concentrate on making this a better article.--Orange Mike 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Daniel, SlimVirgin cut most of the referencs to such publications as The New York Times, Forbes, the BBC, the Washington Post, Nature magazine, etc. Um. A helpful hint. Perhaps having a look at a few recent editions of Who's Who in America might prove illuminating and might assist in verifying some of the information I provided. (I myself don't have a copy because I didn't spend the $300 buck to see my name up in lights; I think it was the 2006 edition.) Pleasantville 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I cut your reference to your blog. Kathryn, could I ask you to stop self-promoting, please? If you would stop doing that, you'd be in a better frame of mind to understand what we mean by an encyclopedia article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Who's Who is mostly never used as a reliable source for biographies in WP, due to the "vanity" aspects of these type of publications ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The notability discussion, like the recent attempt to assert that Dave Winer is not notable, is clearly consistent with uncivil personal axe-grinding and inconsistent with Wikipedia standards of fairness, civility, and indeed with the traditions of scholarship. Jossi and SlimVirgin, for some reason, continually argue against Cramer's credentials, finding one reason or another to doubt things that are widely known and easily verified. Cramer is incontenstibly the editor of numerous important science fiction anthologies that are widely read and influential. This is not in question. Cramer's NYRSF has been nominated for the Hugo award on numerous occasions. This is not in question. Cramer's early work in literary hypertext is not in question. There is no good faith reason for this controversy. 71.126.228.152 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my comments. I never asserted lack of notability. On the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree notability is probably established, that doesn't mean the COI tag should go, the self promotional qualities of this article should not go without notice. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what is meant by "She is an innovator in the use of digital cartography for disaster relief"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. I'm still not clear on the notability issue. Can anyone say exactly what she's notable for? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) She and David Hartwell select The Year's Best Science Fiction and have done so for years, making them a leading voice in contemporary science fiction. (b) Her major anthologies on Hard SF and Space Opera have helped define current trends in science fiction and deliniate literary discourse on the future. (c) Her research in reconciling online mapping resources such as Goggle Maps with disaster-related satellite photography has appeared in major publications (e.g. Nature) and, more to the point, was of significant importance in the Katrina aftermath, as it was for some time the sole public source of information on the status of domiciles (and, by inference, their inhabitance) trapped in the flood. (d) She published an influential short hypertext fiction which appeared before the Web was invented, which has been widely taught and reviewed, and she edited other important early hypertext fictions. (e) She's been nominated for a slew of Hugo awards. MarkBernstein 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to address the last point, she herself writes that the Hugo award nominations are given to her despite the fact that she does almost nothing for the magazine. Perhaps this is irony, but it's hard to tell. Mark, I also know you know her in real life. I'm really not trying to be difficult, and I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse or offensive, but there's a distinct lack of independent third party sources here, and that concerns me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My question is has she been the subject of multiple verifiable article in reputable sources? As far as I can tell she receives only a passing mention in the NY Times piece on satellite mapping, beyond that I don't see much in the way of reputable sources for the article to meet WP:NOTE she does appear to have some fans in the Wikipedia community, but the sharpness with which they respond to what really seem to be pretty well intentioned actions of editors to improve the article makes me wonder. I don't think anyone her has any thing against Kathryn, but I am not sure this article would pass an AFD. This situation reminds me of a number of AFDs, where a users first action was to create a page about themselves (when they are of fringe notability), the reaction of users unfamiliar with Wikipedia is often hostility when confronted with the work of well intentioned editors. I sure would like to see an article in some reputable publication that is focused on Kathryn Cramer, it would help me sleep better at night. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'd like to see. Pretty well everything I've found has taken its information from Cramer herself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are abundant books written or edited by Mrs Cramer. You can check Google books for example: [2]. That in itself will make this person notable as an sf author/editor. Besides that, there are several books that mentions Cramer in that capacity. So I would not be concerned with notability issues, but with a good, simple, and NPOV article, removing any material that may not be directly relevant to her notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that she has written plenty, but I still fail to see what has been written about her. Writing a lot of books doesn't automatically make one notable, if these books have not garnered her enough attention to make her the subject of any non trivial articles then I can't see enough notability. Book reviews could be construed as being about the author, are there any that we could look at? --Daniel J. Leivick 04:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) If you follow the Google books link above, you will find books that refer to Cramer's work, not just books authored or edited by Cramer. I have not explored these in detail, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. She would get a Keep vote from me in an AFD. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Kathryn or Mark could help out here by supplying a list of independent third-party sources i.e. independent reliable publications that have published material about Kathryn Cramer that hasn't been entirely supplied by her, or independent book reviews, as Daniel suggests. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope; the case has been made, and additional labor will not improve the article or advance scholarship, but will only lead to additional gaming. Books (which you find reason for dismiss), journal and magazine articles (for some reason you "doubt" her role an NYRSF even though she's been nominated for multiple awards as its editor), journal articles, lectures, awards. Fine. Enjoy your power. Go ahead: delete the page. I'm sure that wikipedia will be greatly improved by your vigilance. I have real work to do. There is no good faith here, much less assumption of good faith. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 15:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Deleting the article may be an option, by going trough the deletion process (WP:AFD, but I doubt it will be deleted. If you are unwilling to assist in making this article better and compliant with Wikipedia content policies, so be it. We will have to do without your help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to question the kind of hostility that user MarkBernstein has been displaying, his first real edit to Wikipedia after registering as a user several months ago was an remark quesioning editor good faith in asking for citation and then this sarcastic remark above, I really do not understand where this come from I can't imagine how one would find asking for citaion on a subject created article could be construed as an outragous bad faith action. Nor do I see the skeptism that other users including myself have as to the notablity of my subject as bad faith. In my experience which is admitadly brief subjects who create articles about themselves are often on the edge of notablity (this article most likely passes) there is nothing wrong with looking into it carefully to ensure that Wikipedia is not used as a promotional tool. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Bernstein, nor can I speak to his actions. I am familiar with Cramer's work in the field, though we have never met; and like other Wikipedians who know her, I am puzzled by the extent to which the tiniest element of the article about her has been met with what we perceive as unusual hostility by people with no background in the field where she is most notable. We may be more sensitized to this, due to the long history of her online demonization by bloggers opposed to the ideological positions her blog takes. Where is the assumption of good faith? --Orange Mike 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The assumption of good faith, Mike, dissipates quite quickly when the this person calls editors that responded on a posting at WP:COI/N "semi-anonymous people acting like jerks", making sarcastic comments about "mind group", posting an attack piece in her blog in which he called these editors "a pack of officious trolls", and being dismissive to all comments made by others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the current version of the article, edited by people that care about this project, is a much better, more factually accurate and more neutral article that the one Cramer herself created. I would invite you to rather than make value judgments on the work of others, that you help make this article better, if as you say, you are proficient on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Factually Acturate???? good faith?

I do want to take a moment and express thanks for the actual time you are putting in to try to do a good job however it is you define that. I can see that you are trying to be reasonable within your frame of reference whether or not I accept that frame of reference. Now on to my disagreements . . .

First of all, I challenge publication in NYRSF as "self-publication" in the sense of vanity press. For a number of years, publications in NYRSF were listed in the MLA bibliography (some may still be, though t hey got way behind, since their NYRSF bibliographer was a volunteer), and therefore would have counted towards tenure, should I have been after that. (By the way, "Science Fiction & the Adventures of the Spherical Cow" was reprinted in the anthology Visions of Wonder (1996), published by Tor Books (ed. Hartwell & Wolf), but that probably counts as self-publication in the sense it's being used here because my husband co-edited the book and he works for the publisher.) Are you also going to delete David Hartwell's books published by Tor because he works there?

Can you cite factual inaccuracies please? Any? Typos yes, but I am not aware of any factual inaccuracies. What do you still need references for?

Someone cuts the references to my reviews in the Washington Post and then someone else declares the NYRSF stuff self-published. Oh, come on.

So only whole articles about me in Forbes or the New York Times are thw only usable references from major media? (I didn't give you the full list by the way. There was also Le Monde, The International Herald Tribune, the Telekom Presse (do you read German?), Corriere della Sera, the Xinmin Weekly (in Chinese). And I could go on . . .

Also someone cut the image I created that was the cover of the February 16th issue of Nature in connection with my involvement in digital cartography and the description of my involvement with that. However did that happen? How many times does one need to make the cover of Nature magazine before it is notable? (The same issue also contained my first scientific publication in relation to the same subject matter.) KC Pleasantville 23:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are promoting youself, your family, and your friends. Longstanding trusted unpaid volunteers are trying to make this article verifiable and encyclopedic rather than either brilliant original prose or an advertizement (we are neither). Your attempt to "move" SF bios to another wiki was met by its main people on its talk pages with concerns over verification of the authors' identities (needed to be verified due to the proposed inclusion of information sourced from the contributing authors) and thus the need for such material to not be part of the anyone-can-edit wiki database but be a seperate enterprise from the Speculative Fiction DataBase wiki. You have joined a nortorious group (Wikipedia Review) that has caused huge emotional pain among our contributors. WAS 4.250 23:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the cover of Nature, as per WP:FAIR, covers of books, magazines and the like can only be used to illustrate the articles about these items. That is why it has been removed. And our "frame of reference" with which you seem to disagree, is called Wikipedia:Policies. You may want to read these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason some of the newspaper articles were removed is that they were repetitive. The New York Times did an article on the use of Google Earth to help disaster victims. You were one of a large number of people who posted some disaster images to your blog, as I understand it. The NYT interviewed you and included a brief quote. That article was then copied by other newspapers, not entirely, but in substance. Therefore, there was no point in repeating it. If there are other articles that say something different, by all means supply links. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain this passage. I'm not following you: "its main people on its talk pages with concerns over verification of the authors' identities (needed to be verified due to the proposed inclusion of information sourced from the contributing authors) and thus the need for such material to not be part of the anyone-can-edit wiki database" I don't understand what you are talking about. And at what point did I obtain responsibility for intuiting who might have hurt whose feelings in the past? I found WR in my referer logs. Pleasantville 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That passage was mainly refering to Ahasuerus's comment at ISFDB's Community Portal discussion at Author_Bios. About WR: I apologise for not being more clear that I was warning you about WR rather than anything else. I tend to not spell things out in as much detail as I should. Sorry. WAS 4.250 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Forbes Interview predates the NYT article; the NYT article is indeep picked up in a couple of other places. The article in chinese was separate and based on quite a legthy interview. There was also a paper in New Jersey that published a separate article, again, not based on the NYT but on an interview of their own. Why are you a superior judge of significance than a diversity of reporters calling independently and forming their own opinions? There was a reason they called me and not many other people. Also there was a BBC tech podcast that I'd have to look up ther reference for, concerning Pakistan. (I'd have to look up the reference.) Pleasantville 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the interviews are all about the same issue. You hosted some images on your blog and some reporters took a quote from you about it. We have no idea that they called you; you may have contacted them first for all we know, so that's irrelevant. What we look at is what was published, no more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-publishing?

I'm not sure I understand why Cramer's essays in The New York Review of Science Fiction aren't listed individually. The reason given in the edit summary was that they're believed to be self-published. I don't think the NYRSF is an example of self-publishing, as defined in WP:V and WP:RS--the magazine is hardly a vanity publication, as the Hugo nominations and the existence of an editorial board should show. She is one of the editors of NYRSF, but I'd imagine it's pretty normal for literary periodicals to publish essays by the editors.

Furthermore, the essays weren't being used as a source for the article, except in the rather narrow sense that they are sources for their own existence, so I can't even see why self-publishing would be a problem here. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We have a "poisoning the well" problem here. Kathryn Cramer has promoted herself both by editing here and by promoting her version of her bio elsewhere. SlimVirgin and others are trying to create an unbiased bio based of reliable published sources; but that is being made difficult by repeated efforts to hijack the process by various self-promotional eforts by Kathryn Cramer who claims Wikipedia is nothing more than a blog and treats it as if it were one. WAS 4.250 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

WAS, maybe I'm misunderstanding the situation, but I think Cramer's "self-promotional efforts" stem from unfamiliarity with WP policy, rather than bad faith editing. There are a bunch of policy pages, they're fairly convoluted, and it takes awhile to understand what they're about. (I don't think I even read RS and V until weeks after I first started editing.) It seems to me that User:Pleasantville is making a good faith attempt at playing by the rules, now that she's been directed to the relevant policy pages. At any rate, her actions are immaterial to the question I was asking--why shouldn't her essays be listed individually? --Akhilleus (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"I think Cramer's 'self-promotional efforts' stem from unfamiliarity with WP policy, rather than bad faith editing." Well said! Seems to me the "self-publishing" rule is meant to exclude dubious material which has not gone through a peer review process. Since the NYRSF has an editorial board, and is widely recognized in its field, I don't think that applies. While there is obviously bad blood now between Cramer and certain editors, I don't think it enhances the reputation of Wikipedia to treat her as harshly as some editors (particularly SlimVirgin and Jossi) are, since it merely confirms her picture of Wiki as a process run by people who disdain expertise and carry on grudges. --Orange Mike 00:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would really appreciate if you stop making judgments on my position. I have not treated anyone harshly as you said. I have informed Mrs Cramer on the basic guidelines for WP:AUTO and have worked to make this article compliant with WP policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orange Mike, Wikipedia does not allow editors (or anyone else) to make assertions based on their own personal knowledge. In that sense we do "disdain expertise". Experts and non-experts all need to provide verifiable sources so that any reader can check the material. We also discourage editors from using Wikipedia as a soapbox to settle outside grudges or to promote themselves. There are several reasons why autobiography is so strongly discouraged - one of them is that the editing process may appear to become personal even when it is only concerned with meeting Wikipedia standards. In this instance I think that the experienced Wikipedia editors have all treated the subject/editor with respect and civility. -Will Beback · † · 01:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that everyone here has acted in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, and I'm not really interested in rehashing the details. I'm more interested in determining whether the NYRSF is self-published. I don't think so, and Orange Mike doesn't think so either. Any other opinions? --Akhilleus (talk) 05:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is the publisher, if not Cramer and Hartwell? The website "Dragon Press", the nominal publiser, is down, but it appears to be Hartwell's sole proprietorship. The NYSRF website has the feel of a home-operated business, even to the point of being illustrated with a child's drawing. What might keep it from being considered a "self-published" source is the presence of an editorial board and a managing editor, though a 2004 blog entry by Hartwell indicates that the editor now has a full time job elsewhere.[3] I don't see any mention of the editorial board on the website - is it listed in the masthead of the NYRSF itself? Overall, my feeling is that it is very close to being self-published, that writing for a periodical which only pays $25 for a feature is not a major accomplishment, but that if the subject is really proud of that work it is probably OK to include it. -Will Beback · † · 18:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Hugo Award that's mentioned here a few times is, I believe, specifically awarded to non-professional publications, so it does seem as though NYRSF is considered by them to be some form of self-published fanzine. The issue is easily settled. If it's not self-published, there will be a list of names of employees and/or an editorial board listed somewhere. If that can be found, we can make a determination. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Searching further, I see that the NYSRF has been nominated repeatedly for Hugos, thought it's never won any. The nomnination and selction process appear to be open to everyon who attends the annual "WorldCon" convention. However the "Semiprozine" category has special eligibility requirements:[4]

• A generally available non-professional publication (average print run of fewer than 10,000 copies per issue) devoted to science fiction or fantasy which has published 4 or more issues, at least one of them in 2005, and met at least two of the following criteria in 2005:
• Had an average press run of at least 1,000 copies per issue.
• Paid its contributors or staff in other than copies of the publication.
• Provided at least half the income of any one person.
• Had at least 15% of its total space occupied by advertising.
• Announced itself to be a "semiprozine".

It looks like the eligibility is reviewed prior to allowing a nomination, but isn't clear. Does anyone know which of the criteria the NYSRF would meet? -Will Beback · † · 19:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I know it meets the first and fifth. The Worldcon has a committee to handle the details and any quibbles, but it's been a long time since there was a nomination in that category that was not eligible, if there ever has been. --Orange Mike 22:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The fifth criteria, "Announced itself to be a 'semiprozine'", wouldn't affect the determination here. I'm not sure that the first would either. I think the 2nd, 3rd, and possibly 4th would do more to establish that this isn't just desktop publishing. As does the presence of an editorial board, which someone suggested they have. -Will Beback · † · 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, re: "paid its contributors or staff in other than copies of the publication ..." could be fulfilled if one of the self-publishers (Cramer or her husband) took payment in some other way. Re: "provided at least half the income of any one person": ditto. Re: Advertising: I don't see the presence or absence of advertising as a criterion either way. Some blogs get advertising, but they're still self-published. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

People may not perhaps be aware that in SF there is a significant overlap between "fans" and "academics"; the entire field of criticism has been ushered in, in large part, by so-called "fanzines". So being called a "fanzine" or a "semi-pro zine" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. Basically, NYRSF is in the academic wing of these things, and plays an important role in SF critical dialog. It's the equivalent of the Women's Review of Books for women's studies. Even a cursory review of other SF journals and academics/pros talking about the articles/reviews published in NYRSF shows this, but I'm not sure how one could cite this kind of reference -- maybe it would be included in citation indexes, but there's not a good one for the arts & humanities. That's simply the sort of data that is, in fact, important in assessing the notability of a scholarly publication, that is not going to be able to be easily visible to a "google test" or a "news media" test. I'm raising these issues at WP:Notability (academics) but in the meantime I really have to stress that people should take care to not apply inappropriate criteria to this kind of work. --lquilter 06:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Establishing notability

Lquilter, a quote from a notable author about the importance of NYRSF might be a helpful addition to New York Review of Science Fiction, and might help convince the editors here that the magazine is more than "desktop publishing". --Akhilleus (talk) 17:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and thanks for the suggestion. I did pull out a review of the journal from a library review journal, and will continue to mine the various discussions & databases for discussion or references to NYRSF. (Will do a MLA search later today.) I've been working on the NYRSF article because, apparently as spill-over from this debate, that article was PRODded. I removed the PROD & have been fleshing things out. I have to confess, that I hadn't really anticipated having to defend inclusion of academic & critical journals in wikipedia. And surely people see the problem here: that academics and noted figures publish in important journals, but rarely comment on them directly, in published sources. It's an academic reputation thing, and to my mind, is one of the sorts of problems we should be addressing in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or related projects. Notabilty for an academic journal is simply not going to be evidenced by published quotes about the journal; but rather by the quality, reputation, and influence of the journal. Anyway I'm working on it there too. --lquilter 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely one of the things that establishes whether a literary magazine is notable is whether it publishes notable authors. A stroll through the index of NYRSF turns up an impressive list of contributors--Brian Aldiss, Daniel Pinkwater, Ursula K. LeGuin, Gene Wolfe, John M. Ford, Michael Swanwick, Walter Jon Williams, George Alec Effinger, Roger Zelazny, and Frederick Pohl are just some of the authors I noticed. This doesn't fit the profile of vanity publishing. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

section break

Why are we talking about the criteria used for the Hugo semiprozine award? NYRSF obviously meets those criteria, it's been nominated over and over again. But the definition of "self-published" we should be interested in is Wikipedia's definition, not Worldcon's. WP:V doesn't give a firm definition of "self-publishing", WP:RS is better--"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published,..."

NYRSF currently lists three editors, Cramer, David Hartwell, and Kevin Maroney. So I suppose it can be claimed that if Cramer publishes essays there, "no one stands between the writer and the act of publication". Can't the same thing be said of newspaper editorials, letters from the editor, and so forth? What we're really trying to determine, I think, is if the NYRSF is vanity publishing, and I think it's very clear it's not. Aside from the Hugo nominations, which suggest that the magazine is prominent within the field, one can look at the index and see that most of the contributions aren't by the editors. For example, in issue 48, there are contributions by such notable authors as Samuel R. Delany, Frederick Pohl, and Robert Sheckley. If NYRSF were a vanity publication, I'd expect the majority of contributions to come from Cramer, Hartwell, and Maroney. Furthermore, this publication is cited on Google Scholar, and is held in the collections of about 40 college and university libraries in the U.S., as found on Worldcat.

None of this seems to fit the profile of a vanity publication. However, even if NYRSF is, by Wikipedia's definition, self-publishing, I note that self-published materials can be used as sources of information about the author. If we list the essays individually, the only way the NYRSF is being used as a source is to note the essays' existence, which seems well within allowed use. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As Kathryn Cramer is highly connected in the world of SF, the "nominated" item seems not noteable (I would instead note she is highly connected and name names and relationships). As for the essays and anthologies - I can't say I care one way or the other. WAS 4.250 03:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You really don't understand the way these nominations work, apparently. Most Hugo voters don't know she was on the board, nor care. The zine is what gets the nomination, and any connections the editorial board has are totally irrelevant to the Hugo voters who make the nominations. Heck, until this whole foofaraw started I didn't remember she was on the NYRSF board, and I've been a subscriber for a decade. Her essays are substantive and insightful, regardless of where I read them.--Orange Mike 19:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

NYRSF is not "self-publishing"; it's an established review journal in the field of sf studies. Admittedly it's a small field & academic / review journals have relatively small circulation, but that doesn't render it a vanity press. Editorials & essays by the editors and publishers of journals -- large and small -- are routine practice and are not typically counted as "vanity publishing". ... And for the record, I don't know Cramer personally; I just know of her work ... why? because I follow SF criticism, and if you follow SF criticism you are familiar with this journal and its editors. ... The back-and-forth on this page has taken on the distinct tone of people taking things personally, which is to be expected of less experienced editors who might not know wiki-norms of behavior, discussion, and the like. More experienced editors can help to set an example by peacefully attempting to resolve conflicts, fixing problems, and de-escalating conflicts, rather than participating in disputes. --lquilter 06:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

refs & citations

This article includes citations for very basic biographical details, like degree and parentage; this is not the norm in biographical articles. See, e.g. WP:AUTO ("As long as it's not involving grandiose claims ... a personal website can be used as a reference for general biographical information.") and WP:V ("Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves . . . so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources."). For all of this information, I would suggest that a single inclusion of the relevant website under "references" would be sufficient, and it is unnecessary to footnote each and every individual point. The "references" section is there for precisely that purpose: to list references used in the article as a whole.

Having every sentence and clause individually footnoted is simply an obvious sign that the editing has been contentious. However, it detracts from the article's readability or usability to have a footnote after every half sentence or sentence (and in my mind is a hallmark of the fact that editing & referencing are still in a fairly juvenile state in wikipedia generally). --lquilter 06:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing styles are a matter of judgement. You wish to take into account isues of standardization (norms) and readability. That is good. But there are other concerns to be taken into account that can mean that a good experience Wikipedia editor might, for this article, judge that in-line citing every fact is a better choice. This choice of sourcing style is often made for articles that see a lot of debate on the details, for articles with a history of biased editing, and for articles with sources that are debateable for some reason (perhaps the source is useable for some assertions nut not others). Since Wikipedia articles can continue to be edited, choices need to enhance the process as well as the product. Tying in specific sources to specific assertions helps future editing and the future product (article). Temporarlily increasing readability by removing specific in-line ciations can result in future versions of the article losing the generalized (non-specific) sources and changes in the assertions that now appear possibly unsourced - a worse article. WAS 4.250 19:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand the problem and the larger debate, and thanks for pointing it out here -- I didn't acknowledge it in my comments. Can we agree that a "References" section, with very basic & important references, is appropriate for basic biographical facts? For instance, one shouldn't really have to have separate footnotes for the birth date and the death date in a biographical article; that's a basic biographical fact that's covered in a general reference listed under "References". I'd simply suggest that parentage and degrees earned are that sort of basic biographical detail. I would completely agree on citing things that are in any way controversial, disputed, or would naturally call for a reference because of level of detail or confusion or other issues. ... Even the (few) well-sourced articles on wikipedia don't have individual references for basic biographical facts. So it seems a bit off to me. (This is a relatively minor point, I know; but reading this article and seeing footnotes after those basic biographical details suggests a level of editing conflict that is higher than even George W. Bush. Which you have to admit is pretty absurd.) --lquilter 20:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that in general, and also specifically in this case, it is better to leave in-line cites rather than to convert them to a non-specific reference. WAS 4.250 21:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

unflattering picture

Man that's an awful picture! I realize I've been off the SF Con circuit for 10 years or so but surely Kathryn doesn't look like that all the time! I remember her as being very skinny but still quite the Babe. Isn't there a more flattering photo available? Heck, if need be I'll scan one of my own photos of her and upload it just to get rid of th e present photo. of course, my photos are circa 1988 to 1992.LiPollis 03:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Jossi's removal of the Category Science Fiction Critic

I object to the removal of this categorization. I am referred to in John Clute & Peter Nicholls's Encylcopedia of Science Fiction (CD Rom edition) as a "spikey and erudite critic". I have been nominated umpteem times for the Hugo award for best semiprozine for my co-editing if a literary critical magezine on science fiction to which I am also a contributor. All essay references to such were removed inappropriately by editors associated w/ Jossi who deemed NYRSF to be "self-published." See NYRSF index.

I also wrote the chapter on Hard Science Fiction for The Cambridge Companion to Science Fiction published by Cambridge University Press. ANd I wrote the year in review essays for two Nebula volumes (ed. James Morrow).

It is hard to see why Jossi would feel it necessary to remove the categorization. He is fully aware of earlier versions of this entry and of the material deleted from it by him and by his associates. Pleasantville 22:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I put the SF Critic and SF fan categories back in earlier today. I think they're fully justified by the material in the article, which doesn't even mention the Cambridge Companion. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On mine or on David's? He did this both places, apparently inspired by the fact that I uploaded a photo of David. --Pleasantville 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On this one, but they're justified on Mr. Hartwell's as well; I'll make the change there too. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)