Jump to content

Talk:Maria Popova

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

criticism

[edit]

i added the criticism section in light of recent (~5 days as of today) revelations that she uses advertising on her own blog. 66.91.204.11 (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This material is currently cited to 2 blogs, which are not WP:Reliable sources. Unless there are reliable sources which discuss the issue, the current material ought to be removed. –Quiddity (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph supported by the 2 blogs should still be removed.
Additionally, be careful of tone - "It has been revealed that [...]" sounds a bit more like a journalistic tone than we try to use here, as well as not being timeless. It might help to imagine a reader 10/50/100 years from now. –Quiddity (talk) 03:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your continued feedback Quiddity! We have gone ahead and made the necessary changes to the tone of the mentioned part. Additionally, we were able to reference a credible Reuters source to support the rest of part of the paragraph that we have kept in. --Ric.chi (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Education Program:Cornell University/Online Communities (Fall 2013)

[edit]

Hi Everyone, I just wanted to let you know that my group and I have chosen this article to be the subject for our COMM 3460 Wikipedia assignment at Cornell University. We will be making edits to this page and would appreciate any advice that you have. Here is a link to our course page: Course Page. Please feel free to find more information about the project below:

Sections We Will Work on and Additional Content Ideas

  • We plan on updating the numbers about Popova’s following with current figures (as they were last updated in July 2013 and earlier)
  • We plan to add more information regarding Popova’s history (biographical details)
  • We plan to expand the “Criticism” section by adding two subcategories:
    • “Affiliate Advertising,” where we will discuss backlash regarding Popova’s use of affiliate advertisements.
    • “The Curator’s Code,” where we will discuss Popova’s attempt to codify content curation and the reaction of the public regarding her actions.
  • We also plan to add subcategories to “Work”:
    • “Working Style,” which will cover Popova’s methodology for creating interesting content.
    • “Partnerships,” which will go more in-depth about her current partnership with Noodle (Lore), as well as the TED Conference in 2011.
    • “Awards and Recognition,” which will detail the recognition Popova has received in the media.
    • “Social Media Influence,” which will describe Popova’s klout in the social media world. According to the New York Times in 2011, “Her impact score on Twitalyzer, an independent research group that tracks Twitter influence, puts her in the 99.9th percentile; she ranks higher than Anderson Cooper, Sarah Palin and Justin Timberlake.” (Source: http://nyti.ms/k4OUX8)

Initial List of References and Sources for Additional References

Images and Other Multimedia (Sources Included)

Changes to the Organization/Structure of the Article

  • Subcategories to “Criticism” (Affiliate Advertising, Curator’s Code)
  • Subcategories to “Work” (Working Style, Partnerships, Awards and Recognition, Social Media Influence)

Division of Labor

  • Ric will be working with the Wiki markup language and any additional technical work.
  • Jennifer will be responsible for doing the research portion.
  • Catherine will be handling most of the content creation.

Ric.chi (talk) 19:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ric.chi Very cool; and thanks for leaving a note here to give other Wikipedians a heads-up :) I created this article and keep tabs on it in my watchlist, so feel free to be bold and make changes – I can help fix up formatting and such.
One caveat: I see you're interested in adding media. The process is a bit tricky for files that are copyrighted, and the ideal solution for a living person is to find a freely licensed photo or ask the person to donate a photo. The Wikipedia brand is usually pretty good for getting folks to respond to these requests ;) so I'd give it a try first and see if Popova would be willing to donate an image of herself to Commons, our freely licensed image repository.
Anyway, good luck with this project and let me know if you need any help! Just leave a note on my talk page. Cheers, Accedietalk to me 01:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback from Jared Kass: Hey guys, I've looked over your proposal and everything looks great! Also, I'm glad to see that another wikipedian already commented here. Accedie makes an important point about images, follow the guidelines set out in the Wikipedia:Uploading images article. I'd recommend getting started on contacting image owners right away as it can take time for people to get back to you. As suggested above, be sure to mention this is for Wikipedia, it could help encourage people to contribute. When you're looking for information, you won't be able to use information from Maria Popova's blog, because it is not neutral/a secondary source. It should definitely be listed in external links though! If you guys need any help or have any questions please let me know and I'll get back to you as quickly as I can. Jdk243 (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Popova's blog and other writings, it's a bit more complicated than that - See the specific policy section at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves. There are more detailed comments about this, in the essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published sources. Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Feedback from Prof. Leshed:
You have a thorough proposal and looks like you're on the right path to a successful project, with a detailed plan and ample sources to add. I don't have a lot to add, since it looks like you are already getting feedback from other Wikipedia editors especially about the use of images and linking to Popova's blog. Make sure you follow up on these comments, reaching out for more help from these editors, and thanking them personally on their talk pages. Happy editing! LeshedInstructor (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, I just took a look at the page, it looks like you guys have put a lot of great work into the page, keep it up! If you have any specific questions on certain content you've put in let me know and I'll take a look. As far as I can tell everything checks out. Jdk243 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping Up

[edit]

Thank you Maryana, Quiddity, Jared, Jami, Professor Leshed, and Allen3 for all of your help, guidance, and suggestions throughout the process of improving this article. As we wrap up for our formal deadline for this project (Thursday: 10/10/13), we would be more than happy to hear of any final suggestions that you may have for us. If not, we look forward to working on this article in our spare time and working with you through Wikipedia again sometime in the future. --Ric.chi (talk) 01:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability issue [closed]

[edit]

This article reads like indiscriminate self-promotion. —Agentbla (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article about a minor player in the "neo-literary-blogosphere" is way too long-winded to be taken too seriously.(Unknown) 23 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.143.34 (talk)
I agree, as well, and am surprised that no one has formally flagged this page for a notability review. I don't have time to shepherd it through the process, but I hope that someone else does.Pernoctus (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the notability issue, especially when it comes to the gratuitous amount of detail regarding this blogger's daily habits etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.93.102 (talk) 04:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The person is notable and quite well-known, but previous editors have cluttered way too much information that was not necessary. I have trimmed excessive details like daily habits, extraneous info, etc, that are not really appropriate for an encyclopedic article. Titus III (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no question as to the notability of this individual. As is often the case here, those looking in have not taken the time to review the real evidence from multiple publications about the individual in very reputable national and international sources—rather, looking only at the citations appearing to date in the article. But the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, at any time, and examination of the record both in 2012-2013 and at present, makes clear this writer's notability. The article needs improvements, yes (see below). But the subject clearly belongs here. This matter can be viewed as closed, unless an AfD is opened (which, given the state of the article's current sources, appears unlikely). 2601:246:C700:9B0:2C97:D5B0:DA12:FD4B (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

whoandwhom.com source host to plagiarised content

[edit]

As a part of my citation checking, today, I found that parts of this source, a now-defunct website:

  • Nomes, Christopher (December 10, 2012). "Maria Popova - Editor of Brain Pickings". Who & Whom. Retrieved October 1, 2013.

was plagiarised from a The New York Times article, in particular:

The two remaining appearances of this cited source were replaced with {{cn}} tags, so that we no longer direct readers to this dihonestly generated material.

Otherwise, I would note that all three citations checked today were not properly used. In some cases, the material in the sentence to which they were afixed was not in the source at all (e.g., one source listed magazines Popov liked to read, but the source was afixed to a sentence stating where Popov had published articles), and in other cases the material in the source was misused.

In particular, I would note that this article probably contains plagiarism and too-close paraphrases (given the cases I have found of essentially quoted language without quotation marks). I would urge readers, and in particular, students, to beware, and urge editors to keep an eye out, replacing text with quotes, or doing a real rewrite of the material.

Finally, the lessor transgressional trend of source misuse is also clear, and in my view, the entire article, from top to bottom, needs to be checked for correspondence between afixed source and sentence content. I would not, at present, trust this material to any reader, and certainly not to students without the experience to understand the limitations of the current article. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:2C97:D5B0:DA12:FD4B (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary extensive quoting

[edit]

Note, the extensive quoting in the article text and in the references is intended to be temporary, until the issue of plagiarism is full addressed. (The long quotes in the references allow comparison of article text to reference, so follow-on editors are assured that content appearing is true to the stated source. The long quotes in the article serve as a starting point for shortening or paraphrasing, without all the extraneous, unsourced material that appeared earlier.) Again, it is intended to be temporary, until the major issues of the article—appearance of dates and other purported facts that did not appear in the afixed inline citation, appearance of text that was clearly lifted from source without addition of quotation marks, etc.—can be resolved. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:9B0:2C97:D5B0:DA12:FD4B (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Popova&oldid=1205319170"