![]() | This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
This proposal is aimed at changing the criteria for the subject-specific notability guideline for academic personnel on Wikipedia known as PROF or WP:NPROF. There are known limitations to the current criteria that we hope to address. The case below outlines the history of the guideline, the research relating to PROF, and includes recommendations.
In order to help people reading this document, the PROF criteria are listed here with the specific criteria notes listed here.
Knowing the history of something is important to understanding how we got to where we are. Looking through the archives on the PROF guideline, prior to 2008, it was a very different measure. Three striking points emerge from the review:
It is much less clear whether or not the core group of editors who rewrote the standards submitted them for input from the community via an RfC or other community-wide process, but after ten years of implementation, it is clear that AfD has not overly changed, and that the intent of the guideline and what it actually implies by using the term "average professor test"—as well as the biases that it incorporated—have not solved the problems that they were intended to resolve. Wikipedia has changed dramatically over the decade that this guideline has been utilized, and application of this guideline within AfD, without wider discussion of how it is currently being applied, is a concern.
The contentious nature of repeated discussions concerning the PROF guideline is exhausting. As written, it is far too vague a measure for notability as it reinforces biases, it contains peacock terms, there appears to be original research, and there is a POV which would be disallowed in any other article on Wikipedia. As it stands, the guideline is much more in line with membership in an exclusive club than determining whether an academic is notable, given the context of both their field of study and geographical location.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that even with parallel careers, women's (and minorities') notability and recognition are likely to be less acknowledged and require greater documentation over a longer trajectory than their mainstream male counterparts. For example, a recent article written on a noted scientist gives us the following information: She and her husband graduated in the same medical class with the same degree from the same regional university in 1958. Simultaneously, they both earned their specialties at a well-known European university in 1964. They both returned to their home country where they were each appointed as Senior House Officers of the university hospital and lecturers in the medical faculty. He was appointed to head a medical department in 1973 where he worked in women's health. That same year, she was appointed to head a biology department at the same university, where she worked on infectious diseases. He was made a full professor in 1974. She was not made a full professor until 1983, and at that time, was only the second woman appointed as a full professor at their university. He was recognized with a national Order in 1979. She received the same award in 1998, seven years after he received appointment to another national Order, which to date, she has never been awarded. He has a page on the university "research publications" page, while she does not. She is not listed in World Cat, not listed in PubMed, or any other compiled list of publications, though sources cite that she "published prolifically". The few citations that could be located indicate that her work was not only regional in scope, but international, as was his. (The names have been omitted as both are living persons and a discussion of the biases that impacted their work should not include references which might impact them.)
In another anecdotal case, a woman scientist from Latin America, noted by her National Academy as "las figuras más importantes de la antropología en el país" (one of the most significant researchers in her field in the country), was feted upon her retirement. A book published by the Academy detailed her career trajectory and publication history. Comparing the hundreds of articles, books and monographs listed in the publication to known databases, Google scholar contained no entries for her; Scotus contained 1 entry; worldcat listed 37 publications. The omissions not only impact her publishing record, but anyone who cited her or whom she cited, and point to a flaw in using "highly cited" methodology as it currently stands, as it fails to take into account Global South researchers and those who publish prolifically in languages other than English.
Guidelines should be clear and concise and make it readily apparent to readers what they are and what they are not. This guideline, as it is currently written, contains vague terms, subjective language and does not make clear that it does not apply to all academics, but rather only to academics engaged in research. It is widely accepted that the three-pronged mandate of universities is to teach, research, and provide service to their communities. [2] [3] [4] [5] Thus, the PROF guideline should clearly address all three tenets of that mandate, and should state that teaching academics and administrators who do not meet the guides should be subject to review under ANYBIO. As it stands now, the implication is that those not meeting this guide are not notable, which is hardly the case.
As the guidelines are now written, they decidedly favor the 80–90% male distribution that makes up the population of fully tenured professors. [6] [7] [8] [9] Specifically, criterion #5 regarding named chairs being valid only for full professorships limits the inclusion in Wikipedia of the accomplishments of the majority of women and minority academics who may spend years in academia, with significant accomplishments, but without attaining full professorship. [10] More specifically, they do not include all notable faculty in the pool of potential articles (as would, say, the guidelines for professional sportspeople), but rather, they include only academics who are well above average and have significantly impacted their field of study. Impacting a field of study is unique and, if noteworthy in reliable sources, would constitute eligibility for GNG; however the PROF guideline goes a step farther, requiring "significant" impact, though it also purports to "set the bar fairly low", citing no evidence as to how the "low" criteria were established. However, going back to the archives of the guideline, it is apparent that standards were not set low, but instead were " set fairly high". [11]
For example "The meaning of 'substantial number of publications' and 'high citation rates' is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure", provides no evidence that this is widely accepted and uniform throughout academia, what those qualifications might be, or whether those same standards are applicable across different academic disciplines or applicable in the developing world. In actuality, there are no accepted standards, as the requirements vary widely between universities and even departments within universities, [12] [13] [14] and even more widely when compared country to country. [15] [16] [17]
The exclusivity in the guidelines goes even further, as the criterion #6 rejects academics, who are deans, head of a department, or provosts and yet includes anyone who holds the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post", regardless of whether the administrator was involved in research, had an extensive teaching career, or was simply adroit at climbing the bureaucratic hierarchy. [18] As shown in previously linked documentation, these are positions which are likely to have excluded women and minorities, thus being selected for such a position, which requires a proven track record, is likely to indicate that those assigned these high-level administrate posts are above the average academic level. As is also shown from the previous discussion from the history of the guideline's creators, the intent was not to imply that these people were not notable, but rather to point to other notability guidelines for their evaluation.
Likewise criterion #7 requires that if the person is working outside of academia (say, in a laboratory of a company), that their contribution must have been of substantial impact. Implying, for example, discovering a failsafe aniline dye as a consequence of trying to unsuccessfully develop quinine [19] isn't unique enough in itself to establish notability, but rather one must confirm that creation of that substance changed the world of patenting and fashion, as well as the entire agricultural market that up until that time had relied on plants for supply of materials to produce dye. [20] As noted before, the term "substantial" is subjective, is not in line with allowing sourcing to establish notability, requires editors to use their own analytical ability to determine what substantial might be, and should be eliminated from the guideline, as it is at odds with other accepted Wikipedia policies.
Which brings the next point, which is that highly cited is in and of itself prejudicial. Historical comparison of regional data shows that the majority of "highly cited" researchers live in the Global North. [21] Further, the standard reflects well for those engaged in fields in the hard sciences and who publish in journals, while simultaneously penalizing those who work in fields where there is relatively little cross-citation to other research (such as in law, where authority) or where books or trial outcomes are the norm. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Citations also rely on factors which may be impacted themselves by biases, known or unintentional. For example, research has shown that the majority of women cite both women and men's research whereas men typically cite other men. Add to that, the frequency with which many women have name changes often impact whether or not they are credited with all of their publications. [27] Citations can and are manipulated by those who cite their own works, [28] [29] and simply citing a work does not ensure that it has actually been read. [30] Documentary evidence exists to show that those with lengthy careers who published in the pre-internet era rank lower in indices like the H-index than more recent graduates whose work began after 1996. [31]
Women and people from the Global South are often excluded from publishing because the funds to publish are controlled by academic hierarchies which exclude them, or by the dominance of the Global North in the small market of professional academic publishers. [32] [33] [34] Even if academics in the Global South have produced journal content, they have typically needed to rely on established networks in the Global North to print and circulate their materials to larger markets. [35] Further, many rankings require that published materials be in English, regardless of whether English is the predominant language in the country. [36] This impacts the publishing ability of academics who speak English as a second language. [37] [38]
Criterion #4, requiring publication of "several books" used as texts, does not appear to be based upon any criteria, and could just as easily be indicative of placing the bar far above average. If a scholar has produced a single widely used textbook or the only textbook on the subject, have they met the bar of above average and exceeded the routine execution of their job? Likewise, if their work has affected or contributed to the development of curricula for other universities within their regional context, would the arbitrary criterion be satisfied? Terms and or criteria which cannot be established as globally accepted standards or in line with other Wikipedia policies should be removed from the guidelines.
Having identified flaws and shortcomings in the existing guideline, it seems clear that a major overhaul of the criteria is required to eliminate criteria which do not appear to be in line with other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Throughout the guideline the terms highly selective and highly prestigious should be removed as these are subjective terms, bordering on weasel words, and replaced with actual qualification requirements. It should also state in the lede that the guideline specifically does not include those engaged in pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories, who would be notable only if they meet criteria under the general notability or WP:BIO guidelines, eliminating the need to repeatedly address the subject. Biases which have been identified, studied and quantified need to be acknowledged, as they impact the analysis of notability. If it is harder to even arrive at the bar and then achieve it and surpass it, notability is enhanced, not ghettoized, as is frequently alleged. Failure to acknowledge that those biases exist gives editors inadequate information to assess significance. It is also recommended that the section called "Specific criteria notes" be eliminated and that the qualifiers for each section be moved to discussion points immediately following the numbered criteria to which they apply.
Original text: The person's research has had an significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
Original text: The person has received an highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
Original text: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a
National academy or
Royal Society for any country) or a
fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor an internationally recognized foundation or society known for scholarship (e.g.,
Fellow of the IEEE,
Humboldt Fellows).
Original text: The person's academic work has made an significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of multiple academic institutions.
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
Original text: The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
Original text: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at an major accredited academic institution or major notable academic society.
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
A new point should be inserted as number 7, stating that The person is a teaching academic whose teaching excellence has been noted by a national award; who has designed a noted teaching innovation; or who has produced a notable textbook.
A new point should be inserted as number 8, stating that: The person is an academic working in a field known primarily for their practice, such as architecture, engineering, law, or clinical work (such as physicians or other medical specialties); an administrator, such as dean, head of a department, provost, etc.; or any other academic and meets the standards for notability of ANYBIO or the General Notability Guideline.
The current criterion 7, The person has had an substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, should be renumbered as 9 and edited to remove subjective text and eliminate criterion not included in the guideline: "The person has had an substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity".
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
Original text:The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major peer-reviewed, well-established academic journal, noted for excellence in their subject area, the current criterion 8 should be renumbered as 10 and edited.
General notes, discussed above, are found here.
The current criterion 9: The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC should be retained and renumbered as 11.
In any legal writing a statement of law must be supported by citing a legal authority, such as a statute, a regulation, a case or any other authoritative text
![]() | This is a
failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use
the talk page or initiate a thread at
the village pump. |
This proposal is aimed at changing the criteria for the subject-specific notability guideline for academic personnel on Wikipedia known as PROF or WP:NPROF. There are known limitations to the current criteria that we hope to address. The case below outlines the history of the guideline, the research relating to PROF, and includes recommendations.
In order to help people reading this document, the PROF criteria are listed here with the specific criteria notes listed here.
Knowing the history of something is important to understanding how we got to where we are. Looking through the archives on the PROF guideline, prior to 2008, it was a very different measure. Three striking points emerge from the review:
It is much less clear whether or not the core group of editors who rewrote the standards submitted them for input from the community via an RfC or other community-wide process, but after ten years of implementation, it is clear that AfD has not overly changed, and that the intent of the guideline and what it actually implies by using the term "average professor test"—as well as the biases that it incorporated—have not solved the problems that they were intended to resolve. Wikipedia has changed dramatically over the decade that this guideline has been utilized, and application of this guideline within AfD, without wider discussion of how it is currently being applied, is a concern.
The contentious nature of repeated discussions concerning the PROF guideline is exhausting. As written, it is far too vague a measure for notability as it reinforces biases, it contains peacock terms, there appears to be original research, and there is a POV which would be disallowed in any other article on Wikipedia. As it stands, the guideline is much more in line with membership in an exclusive club than determining whether an academic is notable, given the context of both their field of study and geographical location.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that even with parallel careers, women's (and minorities') notability and recognition are likely to be less acknowledged and require greater documentation over a longer trajectory than their mainstream male counterparts. For example, a recent article written on a noted scientist gives us the following information: She and her husband graduated in the same medical class with the same degree from the same regional university in 1958. Simultaneously, they both earned their specialties at a well-known European university in 1964. They both returned to their home country where they were each appointed as Senior House Officers of the university hospital and lecturers in the medical faculty. He was appointed to head a medical department in 1973 where he worked in women's health. That same year, she was appointed to head a biology department at the same university, where she worked on infectious diseases. He was made a full professor in 1974. She was not made a full professor until 1983, and at that time, was only the second woman appointed as a full professor at their university. He was recognized with a national Order in 1979. She received the same award in 1998, seven years after he received appointment to another national Order, which to date, she has never been awarded. He has a page on the university "research publications" page, while she does not. She is not listed in World Cat, not listed in PubMed, or any other compiled list of publications, though sources cite that she "published prolifically". The few citations that could be located indicate that her work was not only regional in scope, but international, as was his. (The names have been omitted as both are living persons and a discussion of the biases that impacted their work should not include references which might impact them.)
In another anecdotal case, a woman scientist from Latin America, noted by her National Academy as "las figuras más importantes de la antropología en el país" (one of the most significant researchers in her field in the country), was feted upon her retirement. A book published by the Academy detailed her career trajectory and publication history. Comparing the hundreds of articles, books and monographs listed in the publication to known databases, Google scholar contained no entries for her; Scotus contained 1 entry; worldcat listed 37 publications. The omissions not only impact her publishing record, but anyone who cited her or whom she cited, and point to a flaw in using "highly cited" methodology as it currently stands, as it fails to take into account Global South researchers and those who publish prolifically in languages other than English.
Guidelines should be clear and concise and make it readily apparent to readers what they are and what they are not. This guideline, as it is currently written, contains vague terms, subjective language and does not make clear that it does not apply to all academics, but rather only to academics engaged in research. It is widely accepted that the three-pronged mandate of universities is to teach, research, and provide service to their communities. [2] [3] [4] [5] Thus, the PROF guideline should clearly address all three tenets of that mandate, and should state that teaching academics and administrators who do not meet the guides should be subject to review under ANYBIO. As it stands now, the implication is that those not meeting this guide are not notable, which is hardly the case.
As the guidelines are now written, they decidedly favor the 80–90% male distribution that makes up the population of fully tenured professors. [6] [7] [8] [9] Specifically, criterion #5 regarding named chairs being valid only for full professorships limits the inclusion in Wikipedia of the accomplishments of the majority of women and minority academics who may spend years in academia, with significant accomplishments, but without attaining full professorship. [10] More specifically, they do not include all notable faculty in the pool of potential articles (as would, say, the guidelines for professional sportspeople), but rather, they include only academics who are well above average and have significantly impacted their field of study. Impacting a field of study is unique and, if noteworthy in reliable sources, would constitute eligibility for GNG; however the PROF guideline goes a step farther, requiring "significant" impact, though it also purports to "set the bar fairly low", citing no evidence as to how the "low" criteria were established. However, going back to the archives of the guideline, it is apparent that standards were not set low, but instead were " set fairly high". [11]
For example "The meaning of 'substantial number of publications' and 'high citation rates' is to be interpreted in line with the interpretations used by major research institutions in determining the qualifications for the awarding of tenure", provides no evidence that this is widely accepted and uniform throughout academia, what those qualifications might be, or whether those same standards are applicable across different academic disciplines or applicable in the developing world. In actuality, there are no accepted standards, as the requirements vary widely between universities and even departments within universities, [12] [13] [14] and even more widely when compared country to country. [15] [16] [17]
The exclusivity in the guidelines goes even further, as the criterion #6 rejects academics, who are deans, head of a department, or provosts and yet includes anyone who holds the "highest-level elected or appointed administrative post", regardless of whether the administrator was involved in research, had an extensive teaching career, or was simply adroit at climbing the bureaucratic hierarchy. [18] As shown in previously linked documentation, these are positions which are likely to have excluded women and minorities, thus being selected for such a position, which requires a proven track record, is likely to indicate that those assigned these high-level administrate posts are above the average academic level. As is also shown from the previous discussion from the history of the guideline's creators, the intent was not to imply that these people were not notable, but rather to point to other notability guidelines for their evaluation.
Likewise criterion #7 requires that if the person is working outside of academia (say, in a laboratory of a company), that their contribution must have been of substantial impact. Implying, for example, discovering a failsafe aniline dye as a consequence of trying to unsuccessfully develop quinine [19] isn't unique enough in itself to establish notability, but rather one must confirm that creation of that substance changed the world of patenting and fashion, as well as the entire agricultural market that up until that time had relied on plants for supply of materials to produce dye. [20] As noted before, the term "substantial" is subjective, is not in line with allowing sourcing to establish notability, requires editors to use their own analytical ability to determine what substantial might be, and should be eliminated from the guideline, as it is at odds with other accepted Wikipedia policies.
Which brings the next point, which is that highly cited is in and of itself prejudicial. Historical comparison of regional data shows that the majority of "highly cited" researchers live in the Global North. [21] Further, the standard reflects well for those engaged in fields in the hard sciences and who publish in journals, while simultaneously penalizing those who work in fields where there is relatively little cross-citation to other research (such as in law, where authority) or where books or trial outcomes are the norm. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Citations also rely on factors which may be impacted themselves by biases, known or unintentional. For example, research has shown that the majority of women cite both women and men's research whereas men typically cite other men. Add to that, the frequency with which many women have name changes often impact whether or not they are credited with all of their publications. [27] Citations can and are manipulated by those who cite their own works, [28] [29] and simply citing a work does not ensure that it has actually been read. [30] Documentary evidence exists to show that those with lengthy careers who published in the pre-internet era rank lower in indices like the H-index than more recent graduates whose work began after 1996. [31]
Women and people from the Global South are often excluded from publishing because the funds to publish are controlled by academic hierarchies which exclude them, or by the dominance of the Global North in the small market of professional academic publishers. [32] [33] [34] Even if academics in the Global South have produced journal content, they have typically needed to rely on established networks in the Global North to print and circulate their materials to larger markets. [35] Further, many rankings require that published materials be in English, regardless of whether English is the predominant language in the country. [36] This impacts the publishing ability of academics who speak English as a second language. [37] [38]
Criterion #4, requiring publication of "several books" used as texts, does not appear to be based upon any criteria, and could just as easily be indicative of placing the bar far above average. If a scholar has produced a single widely used textbook or the only textbook on the subject, have they met the bar of above average and exceeded the routine execution of their job? Likewise, if their work has affected or contributed to the development of curricula for other universities within their regional context, would the arbitrary criterion be satisfied? Terms and or criteria which cannot be established as globally accepted standards or in line with other Wikipedia policies should be removed from the guidelines.
Having identified flaws and shortcomings in the existing guideline, it seems clear that a major overhaul of the criteria is required to eliminate criteria which do not appear to be in line with other Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Throughout the guideline the terms highly selective and highly prestigious should be removed as these are subjective terms, bordering on weasel words, and replaced with actual qualification requirements. It should also state in the lede that the guideline specifically does not include those engaged in pseudo-science and marginal or fringe scientific theories, who would be notable only if they meet criteria under the general notability or WP:BIO guidelines, eliminating the need to repeatedly address the subject. Biases which have been identified, studied and quantified need to be acknowledged, as they impact the analysis of notability. If it is harder to even arrive at the bar and then achieve it and surpass it, notability is enhanced, not ghettoized, as is frequently alleged. Failure to acknowledge that those biases exist gives editors inadequate information to assess significance. It is also recommended that the section called "Specific criteria notes" be eliminated and that the qualifiers for each section be moved to discussion points immediately following the numbered criteria to which they apply.
Original text: The person's research has had an significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
Original text: The person has received an highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
Original text: The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a
National academy or
Royal Society for any country) or a
fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor an internationally recognized foundation or society known for scholarship (e.g.,
Fellow of the IEEE,
Humboldt Fellows).
Original text: The person's academic work has made an significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of multiple academic institutions.
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
Original text: The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon).
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
Original text: The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at an major accredited academic institution or major notable academic society.
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
A new point should be inserted as number 7, stating that The person is a teaching academic whose teaching excellence has been noted by a national award; who has designed a noted teaching innovation; or who has produced a notable textbook.
A new point should be inserted as number 8, stating that: The person is an academic working in a field known primarily for their practice, such as architecture, engineering, law, or clinical work (such as physicians or other medical specialties); an administrator, such as dean, head of a department, provost, etc.; or any other academic and meets the standards for notability of ANYBIO or the General Notability Guideline.
The current criterion 7, The person has had an substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, should be renumbered as 9 and edited to remove subjective text and eliminate criterion not included in the guideline: "The person has had an substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity".
General notes, discussed below, are found here.
Original text:The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major peer-reviewed, well-established academic journal, noted for excellence in their subject area, the current criterion 8 should be renumbered as 10 and edited.
General notes, discussed above, are found here.
The current criterion 9: The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC should be retained and renumbered as 11.
In any legal writing a statement of law must be supported by citing a legal authority, such as a statute, a regulation, a case or any other authoritative text