Jump to content

Talk:List of Wikipedia people

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why I created this page

[edit]

I created this list based on suggestions by Dr. Blofeld and Montanabw in this AFD. As Montanabw put it there, "I like Dr. Blofeld's idea of a list of the Wikipedians who have had some off-WMF news coverage, but perhaps do not want an article (as here [referring to Steven Pruitt]) or do not have adequate coverage to quite meet GNG (or be comfortable) for a full article." This explains why Wikipedians with their own articles already (Jimmy Wales, Justin Knapp, etc.) are not listed here, nor do I think they should be. Everymorning (talk) 15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an WP:OUTING problem with some of these entries? Have all editors declared their real name, and done so in such a way as to indicate that highlighting that name is reasonable? There can be no "list of Wikipedia people" that excludes those with an article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that outing is a problem since I did not include the username of any of these editors in this list, with the exception of Ser Amantio di Nicolao, who said in the Steven Pruitt AFD linked above that "...believe me, I'm fine with anything in the article appearing publicly. I'm an open book, generally speaking." Given that he was saying this about the article about himself, and that that article was titled "Steven Pruitt", it seems that this indicates that he has no problem with his real name being on Wikipedia. But it may be a good idea to include other people, i.e. those w/articles already, if there's some policy that says that those with articles can't be excluded. Everymorning (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The list should also have summaries of people who have articles as well otherwise the list is pointless. Make it comprehensive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I love the idea of this list, though contrary to the first post of this section (and in line with the current state of the article), I do believe it should list notable and non-notable people equally. Notability guidelines should be easy: each person listed here should have at least one good source specifically about them (preferably two). However, we should watch out not to confuse an editor that happened to be interviewed in a specific situation and an editor/staff member who is the focus of a news article. Maybe we should look into how to improve inclusion criteria so we don't end up writing entries for editor X of WikiProject Politics who happened to have first-hand experience with removing vandalism on high-traffic articles or what-have-you. ~Mable (chat) 10:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no objection to a list, but I'm also not a real fan, plus the inclusion criteria troubles me. There are, I suppose, some notable people who are also wikipedians, and there are a few wikipedians notable for their work on Wikipedia (such as Wikipedian of the year), and I guess that either way, I'm not sure we really need to include people who don't have their own articles. Steven is kind of a good test case for where a line might exist if anyone who doesn't have an article is included. Problem is, a list like this, frankly I see nothing but endless drama, some from those listed who don't want to be and some from those not listed who want to be. Gawd, like we need more drama on WP. Montanabw(talk) 05:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Good question as well. I think we should try to limit this list to people who have been covered in relation to their work with Wikipedia. If a politician was once in a controversy because they edited their own Wikipedia article or something like that, they shouldn't be included in this list. I think most cases should be fairly straightforward, honestly, though we can discuss some controversial inclusions on a case-by-case basis if it is ever deemed necessary. As for the drama: we follow reliable sources, so those people should be mad at the sources that covered them and not at us. I think editors should also keep in mind that their editing history is public, and that reliable sources have access to this. ~Mable (chat) 10:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page is a terrible idea. It's is bellybutton-facing, unproductive, and creates a list of people who can then become further legends in their own mind. It elevates people within the WMF community to a higher standard and reinforces the perception and reality that there is a clique of people running things. This is undemocratic and offensive. This article should be removed. The picture alone is just all kinds of awful. So many entries need improvement or creation, and THIS has been given so much time and energy. Please focus on something more productive. What a load of hoey! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think the title of the article should be changed to lessen such a "clique" perception? Maybe something along the lines of "List of people notable for their work with Wikipedia" or something like that? That would be a mouthfull, though... Do remember that Wikipedia follows reliable sources, and all of these people have been featured in them. I think this list is much preferred over a collection of weak stubs. ~Mable (chat) 15:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should all entries be individually notable people?

[edit]

I like the idea of a list, but shouldn't all entries be individually notable people? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable question that has come up before (including above on this very page). I got the idea to start this page to serve as a sort of repository for Wikipedians who are notable and for those who aren't based on the AFD for Steven Pruitt (which I had created before it was deleted). If other editors feel that only those with articles already should be included, I think this would definitely make sense, though, as it would be less ambiguous than listing people without articles as well. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all people who do not have Wikipedia articles of their own, and added other people from Category:Wikipedia people. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation staff members?

[edit]

I added people from Category:Wikimedia Foundation staff members to this list, but now I'm wondering if we want to separate Wikimedia and Wikipedia. If this list is strictly for Wikipedia people, then we might remove a few entries. Keep in mind, there may be people in this category who are also connected to Wikipedia specifically. Until this has been decided, I've not added entries from Category:Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board members or Category:Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees members. ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of this list

[edit]

@Another Believer: I'm confused now. This article's lead appears to indicate that it aspires to be a list of notable Wikipedians. That is, of course, the same thing as Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, which is further contributing to my confusion. What exactly is this aspiring to be? Notable people whose editing is also well-documented? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James Cantor's article does not say he is a Wikipedia editor, and he is not included in Category:Wikipedia people. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Another Believer: I don't see how that the latter is relevant, given that I can add him to the category. Mentioning his account on his article is more difficult, insofar as that involves actual work, but there's this, that and the other all indicating he's a Wikipedia editor, and that was a quick search. And he was definitely involved in a high-profile dispute with someone who is on this list, Andrea James. I see no reason he isn't a "Wikipedia person." —Compassionate727 (T·C) 02:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let other editors weigh in, but I'd prefer not to see names added to this list who don't even have "Wikipedia" mentioned in their article's prose. I'd be fine with him being added to the list if his Wikipedia article is updated appropriately. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert

[edit]

Roger Ebert is currently included in the list, but his entry does not mention Wikipedia. I understand why he is mentioned at Wikipedia:Notable people who have edited Wikipedia, but I think he should be removed from this list particular of Wikipedia people, unless his connection to the project can be explained. Thoughts? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed Since no one replied and Roger Ebert is not associated with Wikipedia, I have removed his name from this list. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent move

[edit]

I see this page was moved to List of notable Wikipedia editors. The thing is not all of the people mentioned are Wikipedia editors. Some are board/staff members, programmers, researchers, etc.

@Keeper of Albion: Can you explain the reason for the move? ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this. The lede paragraph ought to be clearer. But "List of Wikipedia people" is hardly the most precise and articulate title, so it should be moved to something else. Keeper of Albion (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Keeper of Albion I have added "as well as other notable people associated with the project" to the lead, as well as a "lead too short" tag. I have also moved the page back to its previous title, so the scope and title match. However, I would have no problem with you submitting a page move request so editors can come to a consensus. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedia_people&oldid=1254842386"