Talk:Henry Gee

message: I just fixed the text talking about The Sigil and By The Sea. They were previously mentioned as "open-source", and cited with a reference to <http://www.salon.com/tech/log/1999/09/07/open_fiction/index.html>. Lest there be any doubt about my changes, which I've explained in my edit summaries:
1) The reference does not make any mention of Henry Gee or either of these novels (in fact, it pre-dates those novels). The only connection is that it is about a writing workshop system run by Andrew Burt, and Andrew Burt is also behind the site ifiction (which also post-dates the article) on which Gee's novel, The Sigil is published.
2) These novels are not open source. The term "open source" implies that the novel is available for free for anyone to edit and republish. As far as I know, Gee has not relinquished copyright on his novels, he has just chosen to not make any money off of them. If an analogy were to be made with software, it would be "Freeware".
I should point out that I haven't read By The Sea, but I have read The Sigil, and do recommend it. 69.95.236.40 (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open-source fiction 

message: Shouldn't there be something about the womanspace fiasco here? In fact, Gee has a track record of being a sexist so perhaps we need something about that as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.112.50.183 (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Got some references?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.113.169 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: References galore: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/477626a/metrics/blogs http://www.google.com/search?q=womanspace+henry+gee The "Gee became embroiled in internet controversy" comment really should date back to at least the WomanSpace incident, if not earlier. Patrikd (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Although I'm personally appalled by Mr Gee's behaviour, I must note this is a BLP, so sourcing is going to need to be high-quality, and blogs and Twitter don't cut it. The latest story doesn't appear to have hit the WP:RS media - David Gerard (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article in Popular Science may meet the WP:RS criteria. It appears more balanced than most of the blog posts. Biolprof (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  If you're worried about a BLP, you can't remove a reference like that and leave the statements it was supporting uncited. Given that the sentence is "Dr. Isis was an open critic of the scientific journal Nature, where Gee is a senior editor." (and presumably the reference wasn't there to establish his senior editorship), I don't see the problem linking to the page where Dr. Isis criticizes Nature. But if that for some reason is not acceptable, then I don't think we should have the statement at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Womanspace fiasco 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Henry Gee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111121151316/http://network.nature.com/profile/henrygee to http://network.nature.com/profile/henrygee
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified