Talk:Annalee Newitz

message: You actually wrote a Wikipedia entry on yourself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedSix  (talk • contribs) 19:33, December 13, 2006 (UTC)
: No, she didn't write it. --Elonka 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I've just read the latest "issue" of Alternet and she is writing her last column for that 'zine. Verifiable at wwww.alternet.org~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Last issue at Alternet

message: "[N]othing is too minor to be in [Wikipedia].  Everything should be noteworthy." (SF Bay Guardian, Techsploitation column: 'Wikipedia Activism', 2007-06-05 -- http://www.sfbg.com/2007/06/06/wikipedia-activism)
Perhaps there's a way this could be saved? It's not like it's unrelated to the entry at hand! Newitz's lead descriptor currently states that she "covers the cultural impact of science and technology."  A quote about how Wikpedia intersects with our cultural history seems very apt for an entry on a technology & culture commentator. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In my book it's a trivial opinion about something; we might as well include her opinion on what toppings go best on toast.  The article linked would be considered a primary source, I believe.  Now, if a reliable 3rd party source uses that quote as part of something, it would become notable (sourced through that article, not directly to this quote).  Most of the other articles I've seen that mention people's opinions of Wikipedia are sourced and written in terms of real world impact (see Stephen Colbert (character)'s article). On a side note, her comment in that article that disk space, etc is not an issue on Wikipedia is sadly lacking in understanding in technology; disk space is always a factor, especially when you suggest including infinite articles!  She needs to read WP:NOT. DP76764 (Talk) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: On second glance, this may be includeable under WP:SELFPUB or if it is a professionally written piece (edited by an editor) and not just a blog entry.  It would be a better item if it were cited by other sources, but that's probably not 100% necessary for inclusion. Go ahead and add it! DP76764 (Talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I've removed this quote as, ironically enough, I think it's too minor and trivial to belong in her biography. It could be included if there are sources to show that she's a notable commentator on Wikipedia, or that other people have commented on her views; but as it is I don't see why this opinion is particularly important or worthy of inclusion. Robofish (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Notability

message: DroidCLH: If there is a published article online that discusses this aspect of Newitz' editorship on io9.com, please cite to it.  Otherwise, you are simply adding personal abuse to the entry. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this is going to need a much better source to be included in this article.  Blogspot is not generally a reliable source.  Please consider WP:BLP as well! DP76764 (Talk) 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree Blogspot is no good, though Comicmix seems possible.  Still, without a much stronger, reliable source - which mentions Newitz by name - it just seems like static on the page. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: io9.com "Banning" claims by DroidCLH

message: Should we start work on articles for her two short stories?--DrWho42 (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short stories 

message: Anders image, a second significant sized image whose focus in not the article subject, was removed as superfluous. It is appears to be a non-professional candid, which does not disqualify it as encyclopedic; however, the poor photojournalism of the photo does, as it poorly presents the purported article subject Newitz—showing the subject off center, and at odd angle, indeed as a sidecar to partner Anders. The photo otherwise contributes nothing to our understanding of Newitz, alongside the clear, single-subject photo appearing above it. Note, there is a wikilink to a separate page for partner Anders (where an Anders-focused image would be appropriate). For an article of this length, a second photo with poor presentation of the title subject is unnecessary and indeed harmful to the encyclopedic presentation of the article. Return photo only with justification, please. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Anders image, discuss here 

message: See above, the section entitle "Sources, or lack…" for an update on the issue regarding lack of sources at this BLP article.  Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisiting the sourcing issue 

message: This is to summarize what was done and why, so we can avoid conflict -- so other editors can hone in on what they actually do and don't like, rather than reverting the arduous work, en masse. So, here is what was done:
1. External links. No change.
2. Citations. These are now more numerous, and uniform in quality -- no dead links, complete with all info including authors, no bare URLs, etc. Refs. 3, 4, and 8 are new (covering a dead citation, and the dissertation and her first book). Maybe not the in the most popular citation format, I don't do templates, but if one wishes to convert, at least all the info is now here. Since it is now clear who actually wrote each article being cited, is also clear three earlier citations used for biographical info were self-authored (a BLP no-no), and so they are tagged for replacement.
3. Personal life. This is a new section here, though standard in such articles. Stubbed in from stray sentences in two other paragraphs. Moving them here makes remaining material at both place more encyclopedic.
4. Further reading. New section here, of further unused references, created from two origins. Frst, articles cited earlier that did not actually say what the text said to which they were attached. (If I had left in place, these would have needed  tags, and rather than do this, I replaced the errant citations, moving the errant ones here.) Second, if an interview was cited, I also moved it here (because interviews are in essence self-authored content, and so not considered the best biographical information); better to have a biography say "she went to Berkeley, which implies a journalistic standard, and some checking, that to have an interview say "I went to… ".  Interviewss are verifiable, yes. broadly reliable as sole source for historic, factual content, no. So, third party records were substituted for interview information, when possible.Entries in this section are now all uniform in style, now, as well.
5. Published works. Existing section. Edited to remove entries that were not really published works.  Some material moved up to new section on work founding new venues, see below. Rest went into career section. What remained is (a) now in date order from oldest to newest. and (b) completely uniform in style (to the point of filling in missing details for each, e.g., Doubleday as Scatter publisher, etc.) One citation was removed from this section -- the only citation here -- because it was misplaced. (It was an article ABOUT the article subject, and not BY the article subject, and so wrong for this section; it was moved to further reading.) Because the short stories have citations, the ""BLP ref improve | section" was the appropropriate signal to send, that this section needed sourcing.
6. Venues founded or created.  New section, a subset of the information that was earlier under Published works, but is distinct. Uniform format, oldest to newest.
Will continue tomorrow, with explanation of 2nd picture removal, and remaining edits.   71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of recent changes, pt. 1 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Annalee Newitz. 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/20150302182434/http://www.techsploitation.com:80/about/ to https://www.techsploitation.com/about/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219225348/https://ksj.mit.edu/fellows/2003/newitz-annalee/ to https://ksj.mit.edu/fellows/2003/newitz-annalee/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219232910/http://gawker.com/5990638/newspapering-is-a-business-the-death-of-the-legendary-boston-phoenix to http://gawker.com/5990638/newspapering-is-a-business-the-death-of-the-legendary-boston-phoenix
*Added  tag to https://www.science20.com/florilegium/blog/timesonline_eureka
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314122613/http://www.alternet.org/columnists/2188/ to http://www.alternet.org/columnists/2188/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117034333/http://www.gettingit.com/author/49 to http://www.gettingit.com/author/49
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Annalee Newitz. 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/20160517001706/http://sfist.com/2005/05/23/interview_annalee_newitz.php to http://sfist.com/2005/05/23/interview_annalee_newitz.php
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) 12:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Annalee Newitz. 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/20150219224315/http://blogcritics.org/book-reviewinterview-pretend-were-dead-capitalist/ to http://blogcritics.org/book-reviewinterview-pretend-were-dead-capitalist/
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) 21:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: Fucking lunatic nonsense.  If you choose to reply, please refer to me as "Your serene omniscience", it is my preferred pronoun and by Wiki policy you MUST use it.
70.163.147.152 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "They".  Jesus Christ. 

message: It seems like the majority of the sources here cite the subject's own work. I struggle to see the subject meeting WP:AUTHOR; I see no wide citation, no new concept or theory, no preservation in museums. As far as I can see, they're a finalist for a handful of scifi awards and won a niche one but their books and articles are not widely independently written of or made the subject of an independent work. Perhaps the relevant content could be merged into Gizmodo and Lambda Awards. — Amitabho Chattopadhyay talk 15:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability