Talk:Danah boyd/Archive 1

message: So, should the line about her being known for her fuzzy hat be removed?  
I can't imagine how I would find a cite for it (although a quick Google search shows that many people consider it a trademark of hers). I don't think any of the press about her mentions the hat.  It's not an essential part of the article although it does seem to be an essential part of her.  If it must be cited or removed, I suppose it will have to be removed.
: Well, it's not in her O'Reilly pic, and when I saw her speak at AAAS, to the best of my recollection she wasn't wearing it there either.  If you can find multiple pics of her wearing it in various newspapers/magazines, then that would qualify as being "known" for it.  Otherwise, I'd say remove it for now -- it can always be added in later if credible press picks it up.  For now, as a rule of thumb, keep in mind that blogs and message board posts can't be used as Wikipedia sources.  --Elonka 23:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, she is known for it, but I suppose not "known" in a manner that meets the WP:VERIFY criteria.  I'll take it out. -- Joebeone (Talk) 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuzzy Hat

message: Okay, I dug in and did the research for myself, and I agree at this point that she has a sufficient body of work to qualify for notability.  I've done an extensive rewrite on the page, but am done for now, if anyone else wants to add anything.  Or let me know what else you think might further improve it. --Elonka 16:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Danah subscribes to the "don't edit your own entry" philosophy and has just recently posted a blog post to point out some errors in the current version and to criticize the current notion of WP:N. I'm going to make any corrections that still seem to be in order. -- Joebeone (Talk) 19:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I removed one of the NPR listings from the "References" section, because I couldn't verify it.  On Boyd's press page she says that she was on NPR twice, but upon closer inspection, I could only find one.  The February 2006 segment was confirmed, but the August 2005 listing, though it says NPR, seems to have instead been an NPR podcast called "To the Point".  I poked around but couldn't find a link to the actual episode (or any verification of Boyd's participation), so I've removed the link for now.  If anyone else can dig up verification (like a link to the actual podcast), it can be re-added to the article later. --Elonka 17:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPR 

message: I work for Yahoo! but i do not speak as a representative of them - i speak as an expert on social technologies.  I do not study social networks at Yahoo!  The only talk that i've given based on resesarch i did at Yahoo! is the tagging talk at IASummit.  For complete transparency, Y! did fund my travel to IASummit, Etech and SXSW this year, but this is only 3 of 21 conferences i attended this year.  My talk at SXSW had nothing to do with Y! or my research there; my talk at Etech was mostly about my research on MySpace and Friendster, although i used my knowledge of Craigslist and Flickr to flesh it out.  All of my research on MySpace and youth and social networks is funded by the Macarthur Foundation.  I am part of a multimillion dollar Macarthur digital youth research grant (PIs: Mimi Ito, Peter Lyman, Michael Carter).  I am co-advised by Peter Lyman and Mimi Ito.  --Zephoria 20:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the above information.  If you can provide links to specific articles or websites (aside from your own) that confirm the above, that'll help speed the editing process.  The best way to do it is to use an inline citation, for example: "At the 2006 AAAS conference, Danah Boyd was one of several speakers presenting information about teen use of the internet." . That makes it easy for Wikipedia editors to verify the information, and to include the necessary references in your bio. --Elonka 23:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka: for the biographical details, why would her blog posts not be sufficient? --maru   (talk)  contribs 04:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a Wikipedia policy thing.  See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Using online and self-published sources. --Elonka 05:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have corrected some of it, can you please explain how "She documented what she was observing on Friendster and other social-networking sites via her blog, and this grew into a career as she became a recognized authority on the subject." is substantively different than your explanation. It may just be my misinterpretation of the text, but any clarification would be helpful. - cohesion 23:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies 

message: This article makes claims of notability so needs to go through Afd to get community consensus for deletion. --FloNight 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  A speedy tag is not appropriate for this article. --Elonka 19:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This absolutely is not speediable.  There is a clear claim of notability, disqualifying it from WP:CSD#A7, and the article already survived one AFD.-- danntm T C 20:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Danah Boyd → danah boyd — This has gone back and forth a few times in the past, but the lower case is what she is published under, and is the most common usage. According to her it is also her actual legal name. We have done this in other articles, I don't see why we would be so intransigent when the actual person has an interest. cohesion 11:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Strong Support WP:BLP says "We must get the article right." This article should have accurate information that can be reliably sourced, and this question falls under that banner. Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names is completely silent (and thus not at all clear, contrary to what Cyrus XIII says below) on what to do with personal names one or more words of which begin with a lowercase letter. This should be addressed in an update to the guideline. Additionally, to dismiss idiosyncratic orthography out of hand is to introduce a POV contention that idiosyncratic orthography is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is the height of NPOV to simply relay information as it is without making such judgments. —pfahlstrom 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
WP:BLP covers contentious information about the subject, and by my reading of that page, capitalising someone's name according to the usual rules of grammar does not constitute a contentious stance. The subject would not win a libel case against a newspaper just because they wrote her name with capital letters, for instance. Given that WP:BLP doesn't apply to this facet of the article, the Manual of Style can, and does. We therefore follow other reliable sources (Elonka lists a few) and keep the name capitalised. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
# Strong Support WP:BLP says "We must get the article right." This article should have accurate information that can be reliably sourced, and this question falls under that banner. Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names is completely silent (and thus not at all clear, contrary to what Cyrus XIII says below) on what to do with personal names one or more words of which begin with a lowercase letter. This should be addressed in an update to the guideline. Additionally, to dismiss idiosyncratic orthography out of hand is to introduce a POV contention that idiosyncratic orthography is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is the height of NPOV to simply relay information as it is without making such judgments. —pfahlstrom 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
WP:BLP covers contentious information about the subject, and by my reading of that page, capitalising someone's name according to the usual rules of grammar does not constitute a contentious stance. The subject would not win a libel case against a newspaper just because they wrote her name with capital letters, for instance. Given that WP:BLP doesn't apply to this facet of the article, the Manual of Style can, and does. We therefore follow other reliable sources (Elonka lists a few) and keep the name capitalised. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Strong Support WP:BLP says "We must get the article right." This article should have accurate information that can be reliably sourced, and this question falls under that banner. Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names is completely silent (and thus not at all clear, contrary to what Cyrus XIII says below) on what to do with personal names one or more words of which begin with a lowercase letter. This should be addressed in an update to the guideline. Additionally, to dismiss idiosyncratic orthography out of hand is to introduce a POV contention that idiosyncratic orthography is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It is the height of NPOV to simply relay information as it is without making such judgments. —pfahlstrom 22:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: # Oppose. Wikipedia:Proper names#Personal names is clear on this and it brings up NPOV concerns to dismiss stylized typography when dealing with company names, groups of artists (i.e. bands) and published works (all which is done regularly, following the Wikipedia Manual of Style) and then give special treatment to articles about people who happen be notable for what they do on their own. - Cyrus XIII 13:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
WP:BLP covers contentious information about the subject, and by my reading of that page, capitalising someone's name according to the usual rules of grammar does not constitute a contentious stance. The subject would not win a libel case against a newspaper just because they wrote her name with capital letters, for instance. Given that WP:BLP doesn't apply to this facet of the article, the Manual of Style can, and does. We therefore follow other reliable sources (Elonka lists a few) and keep the name capitalised. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: * Coming in off of the RFC (posted on April 8), my opinion: danah boyd's name is frequently used in lowercase as well as in first-capped mixed case. Since both variants appear in the published record, danah boyd's own statements about her name are helpful; they're certainly not self-serving and they don't present verifiability/NOR problems since there is significant evidence in the published record that she goes by lowercase d-b.   This is a BLP issue, since it is principally about identities. BLP makes clear that things which reflect on core identities (religious beliefs, sexual orientation) should rely on the individual's self-identification. For whatever reason danah boyd has chosen to lowercase her name, that should be respected as much as any other core identity issue -- there is little that is more core as an identity than one's name. (The "it's not defamatory" is not a good reason: religious faith is not defamatory, and sexual orientation is not necessarily defamatory either.  So "defamation" is clearly not the threshold.) --lquilter 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apr 8 RFC 

message: Concerning the controversy as to whether people should be referred to as they wish to be referred to or
by some external "objective" standard, does Wikipedia have a policy on how to refer to transgendered persons?
Do we simply say "this person wants to be referred to as (female/male), so let's respect their wishes,"
or do we ask them to disrobe so we can check specific anatomic features?
(See Stacy Horn's book Cyberville for a fun discussion of how complicated this issue gets!)
For what it's worth, for both capitalization and gender I would 
suggest that we let the subject themselves choose how they wish to be referred to.
YMMV. Asbruckman 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the right answer both to capitalization and gender pronouns is that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, should follow the conventions used by prominent secondary sources. We don't need to "decide" which gender pronoun to use, we can follow the published usage of others. But I think that gender identity is a much more important issue for us to worry about than "capitalization identity". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Related Philosophical Issue 

message: My own summary of the above discussion is this:  Reliable sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle, Wired, New York Times, Financial Times, Newsweek magazine, NPR, and others capitalize Boyd's name normally: "Danah Boyd".  However, Boyd herself, , says both here in the discussion and on her webpage, that her name is legally lower-cased.  The lowercased spelling has indeed been included in the lead of the Wikipedia article, but this does not appear sufficient to satisfy Boyd, who also wants the article title changed, and all references to her name throughout the article to be listed as lowercase. Ubernostrum agrees with Boyd, and argues that it's a WP:BLP violation to "misspell" the name, and Ubernostrum has posted as much on the BLP Noticeboard.  Everyone else in the recent discussion (myself, Renesis, Cyrus XIII, CBM/CBM2, Wickethewok, Neier), says that the name should stay "Danah Boyd" per the reliable sources and Use common names.  A drive-by admin, DragonflySixtyseven, tried to change the article title to lower case about a week or two ago, but was rapidly reverted, and has backed out, saying it's up to us to settle.  
From my read, the clear consensus is to keep the name at uppercase, "Danah Boyd", but Ubernostrum refuses to acknowledge the consensus, and continues to argue.  It is my opinion that Ubernostrum's arguments have been listened to with great patience, civility, and good faith, carefully weighed, but ultimately rejected, and that several editors including myself have put in an enormous amount of time to patiently argue each of Ubernostrum's points.  I would also like to say that I greatly appreciate that Ubernostrum has continued arguing in good faith and with great civility.  He has presented his case in a thorough and articulate manner. However, I also believe that at this point Ubernostrum has presented no new substantive arguments, but basically just refuses to let things go, and refuses to acknowledge consensus.  That is why we have asked at WP:AN, twice, for a third-party admin to come in and make a formal determination, but both threads seem to have scrolled out of WP:AN without substantial assistance.  If we cannot get an admin that way, and Ubernostrum still refuses to acknowledge consensus, I recommend that we proceed to mediation, and request a neutral mediator from WP:MEDCOM to see if we can put the issue to rest that way. --Elonka 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Myself, Wickethewok, and CBM are administrators, however, I agree with William Pietri (below) that "administrator status" isn't the solution to this issue.  If we can't come to a final agreement, we may need to go through WP:DR; however, I believe we have come to consensus already.  It will be disappointing if this needs to go further. -- Renesis (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I can go a long way with you here, but... I'm questioning whether there's a consensus. There are two other previous discussions on this topic still on this page, and I'm far from the only one who's agreed that the article title should be lowercase (or at least that there are grounds for considering it). On the other side... well, there's you, Cyrus and Renesis consistently presenting the same argument over and over again, with little or no substantive change, while others question whether that's the correct way to go. Who's the consensus and who's refusing to acknowledge it? ;) Ubernostrum 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And just to be clear, I'm not saying there is a consensus for "danah boyd" or that anyone's ignoring it, just pointing out that a history of inconclusive discussions, with people on both sides presenting good cases, does not a consensus make -- it feels like this article has ended up not with consensus, but with one side or another always just walking away exasperated after making no progress. I've got the energy to see this through as needed, so I'm trying to avoid having that happen again; a real resolution (and, if necessary, me wandering off to propose and argue for changes to MoS for a while) is what's needed here. Ubernostrum 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree that administrator status is not relevant here, and would be glad to comment in any disput resolution process. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Mediation of this dispute has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd.  I have listed the recent participants from the discussion at this talkpage.  If anyone else watching this page would like to participate in the mediation, you are welcome to add your name as well.  Or if you have questions about the mediation process, you can read up on it at Wikipedia:Mediation, or ask here and we'll do our best to answer.  :) --Elonka 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing the "progress" so far, I'm wondering what was the point of requesting mediation?  It seems like issues only go there to die.  I'd like to see this get resolved. -- Renesis (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I looked at other cases that Daniel has mediated. The way that Daniel he seems to work, is that he accepts a case, reads up on it for a few days, and then requests everyone to post a statement on the mediation talkpage.  To his credit, he did accept the case very rapidly (he could have waited out the entire week).  If we want to push things along a bit, it probably couldn't hurt for each of us to post a statement at talk. I'd recommend something brief, 500 words or less, giving your "from the ground up" summary of the current dispute. --Elonka 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (followup) It appears that a new mediator has been suggested, to help with the backlog.  All parties are required to agree to the addition, before the case can proceed.  Please check the mediation page when you get a chance, thanks. --Elonka 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify: I never actually said I'd be mediating this case. What I did was accepted it for the Mediation Committee, because it met all the requirements we require, and it was then added to the list of Open Tasks in the "Unassigned" section. There's something written about this here. If you have any further questions or comments, feel free to ask on my talk page or via email, and I wish you and Riana all the best! Daniel 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka's summary above fails to mention the reliable sources which do use her name with lowercase letters. Whoever mediates this should see the archives, where they are cited. I was involved in this discussion, and hope for the correct outcome, but it became too disgusting and stressful for me to continue. —pfahlstrom 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Pfahlstrom, if you would like, you are welcome to join the mediation.  We are currently each presenting a statement of our thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd. --Elonka 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the welcome, but I find I'm unable to discuss subjects I'm passionate about without becoming overly stressed. I wish that weren't the case, but I don't feel this is a good time to try to acclimate myself. Perhaps in a few years. Until then, best wishes. —pfahlstrom 22:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: The article on me currently states: "According to her website, she experimented with different methods of spelling and capitalization for her name, and during college was known as "Danah Michele Mattas Beard", but after her mother's divorce, she chose her maternal grandfather's name, Boyd, as her own last name and eventually settled on giving her name as "danah boyd".[6]"  This is inaccurate and does not reflect the cited reference.  My mother was divorced when I was a child; I added the name "Beard" then (dropping Mattas but that's not clear on my site since I breezed through that section).  Starting in high school, I petitioned to change my name to "Boyd" along with the rest of my family; this was completed during college.  This did not take place right after my mother's divorce, but years later.  Also, the webpage cited does not say anything about experimenting with spelling or capitalization.  Zephoria 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, the quote from this article has the same name as the source, "Danah Michele Mattas Beard" (and above it seems like you are saying there was no "Mattas")  Did you at some point drop just the Mattas ("Danah Michele Beard"?) and would you like the article to state such?  I'm not quite sure I understand what change you'd like reflected, though I've removed the spelling and capitalization bit. -- Renesis (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections