This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
After looking into a recent COI issue I came across a professor who had recieved a Festschrift, since this is a book honouring a respected academic, should this be considered as criteria to assert notability of an Academic. Gnan garra 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, all,
I am back from my wikibreak and have finally gotten around to working on the revision of WP:PROF again. As a reminder, a draft version is sitting in my sandbox, User:Nsk92/Sandbox3 and everybody is welcome to edit it. I made a few extra changes, mostly relatively minor, and had taken a look at the entire text. I think it is in not too bad of a shape right now (in any event, more practically useful and informative than the current version of the guideline) and I'd like to get moving on it and if possible, proceed with a replacement relatively soon, if there is consensus.
While we do not need to perfect and iron out every detail, there are a few things that deserve further discussion before any replacement is made:
Please take another look at the text. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd actually remove the word professor from the article (odd for an article that has an address of WP:PROF I know) and use just academic. Professor is used in so many different ways in some many difference countiries that the generic and more neutral academic is preferable. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Should criterion 8 (editor of a major journal) also include, e.g., program chair of (perhaps multiple) major conferences? It fits the same role, I think: peer reviewing at its highest levels.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
David Eppstein (
talk •
contribs)
"Do we need Criterion 6 (major academic/administrative posts, like the University President) at all?" my thinking on this is still no. The rest of the criteria load very heavily on demonstrating the criterion 1 is met, impact of their work/ideas. I think major academic/administrative posts is really very different, more like the notability debates over whether this or that CEO is notable. My thinking is that (much like Cruisio's comment about it being unlikely that panel/committee membership alone would demonstrate criterion 1) that academic/administrative posts alone cannot demonstrate criterion 1, and that a notable egghead in a senior academic/administrative post would be better judged on raw WP:BIO grounds if the major claim to notability is academic/administrative post. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
For discussion, a suggestion that a preamble/rationale be included. One cobbled together here in nutshell format. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell:
|
This page in a nutshell:
|
Pete.Hurd ( talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell:
|
copied current version from Nsk92/Sandbox to here, prior to welding. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 18:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell:
|
last draft from me for today. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Current footnote 2 states "journals charging significant fees to their authors for publication do not qualify". What here is "significant"? Most open access journals charge authors between $1000-$3000 for publication of their articles. Do these not classify? -- Crusio ( talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the draft version's "major awards" are much higher than consensus has placed them. I don't think anyone has ever argued that a Nobel laureate or Fields Medal winner is not notable. If these are the level of awards needed for #2, then we don't need to have a #2. I tend to think that winners of awards a couple levels lower (Award winner for best book on Medieval Theology; best article on machine-learning) are usually notable. That level might be too low for some, but I don't think there's consensus for enshrining an award level much higher than that in print. (As a guideline, I think it can include some ambiguity and reflect differences in opinion among people who contribute to academic AfDs). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoops -- wrote a long response about how many profs end up getting a keep based on, say, 4 "probably"s and 2 "possible"s to the criteria without any of them being totally kept. Then went and closed the window instead of saving. In brief: good work on #2! I like the edit that seems to reflect this common outcome. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to formulate a general approach to this, not yet in terms of the proposed criteria, and in starting, Idistinguish several entirely different situations. The central one that we are discsussing is
I. Those people known primarily as researchers within the 21st & late 20th century conventional academic system in the US and Western Europe. (I'm going to use US examples, assume the necessary translation). Here the situation is relatively easy to define. There's am established pattern of rewards, which corresponds roughly to academic rank. We can either use academic rank as a surrogate, or the factors that determine academic rank, which are number and quality of publications. The advantages of using academic rank is that it equalizes between fields--we do not have to consider the publication patterns in different subjects. The disadvantage is that we do have to consider the nature of the different universities. Obvious this criterion in general applies usually only to those in research universities or equivalents, but not all of these are equal. There is a considerable difference between being Professor of Mathematics at Princeton and at University of [ ] State. The first can realistically be assumed to be notable, the second might be, but the assumption cannot be made. There is of course no really reliable rating here--it all goes by reputation, which people attempt sometimes to quantify, without any general validation. We've ben making thesedistinctions routinely in our evaluations, and there is no problem at the high end, but just how far that high end goes down is another matter. At even the best university, some departments are better than others--and it changes with time. There's of course the subsidiary question of what level to use: tenure=associate professor, or full professor. The level we have been using is full, though I could argue for lower. (Obviously some pople at lower levels will be notable from the importance of their work--we even have a few postdocs that have been sustained at AfD.)
The most likely alternative is to go by publications: these can be counted, and the quality of the various academic publishers for books and forthe quality of various journals is generally agreed within a field--and for journals, there's a more-or-less acceptable numerical ranking from JCR. The question then is the count, which is very different in different subject. The standard tenure level for the humanities at the best universities in the US is 2 books, one of which at least must not be based on the thesis. The level for full is of course more, but it isnt that easy to quantify. The level in academic fields varies--at the best places its more than just counting. Fortunately,m there is a usable surrogate for quality of individual articles, the impact factor or h value, if used with full attention to he different subjects (I note the h value will not reflect the situation of a small number of very notable papers--there are dozens of modifications) This sort of evaluation really reuires some degree of subject knowledge--enough to know the publication patterns. We have such knowledge in most subjects, we use it routinely at AfD, and it is usually accepted. For fields where we don't, we go more by analogy.
There are also surrogates for research publications: large research grants, multiple distinguished students, editors-in chief of major journals, important prizes, leadership of major professional organizations. These will always be found to accompany academic productivity of a high order, but are often easier to demonstrate.
There's another possibility: Sometimes we attempt to judge the actual importance of the work, as experts would ion a tenure or promotion or grants committee. (In addition, such judgmnts require other factors we are even less equipped to judge--such a committee also looks into expected future productivity ) This I think a little risky--we have too few people who can do this objectively over the necessary wide subjects so the results are idiosyncratic. There are some subjects where the people here seem to think they have the necessary expertise.
And there is one further difficulty: not all disciplines are necessarily equal. There is an ungenerally unstated feeling here that even in good universities, professors of such subjects as education may be at a lower academic level than in the more conventionally rigorous fields. I don't want to discuss the merits of this position--it's rarely said outright at AfD, but often does clearly affect the evaluation. I don't know how to handle this one--in principle its distinction in the field that matters, not the intellectual merit necessary to give distinction in the field. But I admit sharing some of the common prejudices.
DGG (
talk) 08:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
IIa. Those known for research, but outside the developed country mainstream, are a special case, because, although there are many internationally known figures of true distinction there, there are also many whose importance is present on a national, but not an international standard. We have in the past been sometimes willing to judge on such a national standard in recognition of the developing nature of the academic systems, the need for freedom from cultural bias, and the difficulty of evaluating the equivalence of the evidence. To what extent this is appropriate in a universal encyclopedia renmmains unclear--I see good arguments for either position.
IIb Related, is the problems of people, often from such countries, in fields of study where Western academic standards and ranks and publication methods are not used, in particular the many traditional Islamic or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist scholars--and sometime also US fundamentalists. I see no way to evaluate t hem, except by apparent eminence in their communities. Even so, the sourcing problem is often impossible, as the sources are unpublished or unavailable. I see no solution until we have increased participation of appropriately knowledgeable editors, who are able to convince the general community here of their objectivity. (The same is of course true of people working in fields sometimes called pseudoscience).
IIIa. Teachers, and administrators, and the like are much harder to evaluate. Administrators, except for the top tanks of university administrators (President, Chancellor, and often Provost-- all in the US sense) they are usually not of particular scholarly note. Unless they have some special distinction that can be proven through good references, they're not likely to be notable (the case of college presidents I discussed a little earlier--they usually do have news sources and local importance in the area, and I think can conveniently be considered always notable). In almost all colleges and universities (again, I use these terms in the US sense, please translate as necessary). As for teachers, in most colleges and many universities, excellent and experienced teachers can attain the rank of full professor with less scholarship than necessary for researchers in the best universities. I find this tricky: I do not consider local teachign awards as meaningful. What can count here are such things as awards on a national basis or national leadership in professional organisations, just as for any profession. There are also textbooks. Though valid, in my opinion ur standards here need to be tightened a little, and that's a separate discussion.
IIIb In some fields of study, there are particular problems. Many Lawyers on the faculty of law schools are noted primarily not for legal scholarship, but for their legal practice, and will need to be evaluated as such--the standards here are not very satisfactory. Physicians, are often primarily clinicians--such designations as "Clinical Professor" are a good indication. Theyll almost always have published a few papers, but need to be evaluated on the notability as practitioners--this is a little vague too, though head of service in a major hospital is usually accepted as a firm indication of notability. Similar problems happen with agriculturalists and engineers and business people. Creative artists who are not primarily scholars are best evaluated on the basis of the artistic work the same as those not in universities--this seems generally accepted here.
Finished for now. I deliberately didn't map these on the current or proposed standards. DGG ( talk) 08:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this is moving even further in legitimising original research.
Wikipedia covers what others have already written about. i.e. only of there exists a secondary source with coverage of the subject. If there is no independent biographical information on a subject, wikipedia should not be writing the first biography.
We should have no non-source-based criteria. No award qualifies a person for a biography. It is the commentary accompanying the award that qualifies a person for a biography.
Non-source-based criteria is subjective, parochial, and changeable. “Professor” does not always mean tenured, or even “any good”. Many journals charge money. Surviving review is helped by having friends. In some fields, publications and citations are far cheaper than in others. The prestige of awards changes with time, and is also subject to nepotism. Important work may involve only incremental changing. Wikipedians, as uncreditialed voluteers are not appropriate to judge these things. If you personally are well qualified to judge, then consider writing original biographies for http://en.citizendium.org/ . I personally would then be happy to accept a Citizendium biography as a sufficiently reputable and reliable source
There is plenty of independent biographical material out there. It may not be on the net, widely published, or free. Wikipedia already has a bias towards web-sourced subjects, and a real challenge is for it to gather reputable and reliable print-only sources. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a point I left out last night. Before the rise of the modern Western academic system over the period 1800-1900, not only were there many fewer professional academics, but publication standards were much more various, and notability other than by publishing much harder to determine. Technically the standard of being covered by other encyclopedias tends to be met, because the biographical encyclopedias tend to list them all--even if they give very little information (many of our articles on these are copied from deWP, which accepts such sources even without exact citation). It is however extremely hard to find biographical details except for the most distinguished, and we're left with no more than a list of books, whose importance is very hard to determine 2 or 3 hundred years later. I see no solution here except continuing to accept the information in other encyclopedias.
Additionally, my comments on the less developed countries apply to the US before 1900-1920, where most professors in distinguished colleges were not really scholars in a world-wide competitive sense. They are however usually in encyclopedias of the period, though without much in the way of details.
For many oft he historical figures, it's simpler to go by university, for a list of successive holders of a major chair, and assume all of them to have been notable in their period. (I am of the impression the same problem applies to many other early figures in other professions, and is solved more or less the same approximate way..) 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
See WP:AN#Mass speedy deletion of Fellows of the Royal Society. Someone added stubs on 60 Fellows of the Royal Society; some other ignorant admin didn't recognize this as a claim of notability and speedied them all. Now undeleted again, so the drama is over, but might be of interest to editors here as an example of what can go wrong if we aren't more explicit about notability when writing new stubs. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the discussion has kind of stalled, I'd like to propose that we proceed with the actual guideline replacement in about 5-7 days or so, unless there are objections or someone feels that there are still some significant issues with the revision draft that need to be hashed out further. The draft itself, at User:Nsk92/Sandbox3, can still be copy-edited and tweaked in the meantime and everybody is welcome to do it. Nsk92 ( talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I recognize this is a rewrite and clarification along the same lines as the present, not an attempt to do it from a radically different perspective. So considering that, There are some overall problems.I stat these a problems, not that I necessarily have a suggestion--what suggestions I do have will follow.
Details forthcoming. DGG ( talk) 16:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
With great respect for all the work that Nsk92 has put into the rewrite, I think if I had to decide between the current version and the proposed revision, I would go with the current. The current version is quite a bit more general in terms of fields while being shorter. The clarifications made in the new version are helpful, but (nearly?) every example comes from the natural science, engineering or mathematics and thus I think it will create more disagreements when it comes to humanities, arts, and social sciences AfDs than it will clear up. I've tried to find a way to embrace the rewrite, but reading both of them through from top to bottom again now, I don't think I can. --
Myke Cuthbert
(talk) 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to make one more pitch and propose a motion to proceed with the replacement of the guideline by the revision draft (currently at User:Nsk92/Sandbox3). I think that in many ways the draft is an improvement over the current guideline text. Judging academic notability is difficult and I think that the revised version does a better job of indicating what the main quantity to measure is (the impact of one's academic research) and of providing practically useful guidance in evaluating academic notability. I feel that for people who are not academics themselves and who are not academic-related AfD regulars, the revision draft provides distinctly more helpful practical guidance in this regard than does the current guideline. Many of the perennial AfD issues are explicitly addressed and clarified (the definition of an academic and the scope of the guideline, the issues of named chairs, university presidents, collaboration distance, etc). It is true, of course, that the draft is certainly not perfect and has weaknesses such as the issue of undefined adjectives and a bit of a slant towards natural sciences over humanities. However, I think that these weaknesses are ultimately outweighed by the improvements. The issue of undefined adjectives is actually worse in the current text of the guideline and the revision draft does have substantially more examples that clarify what they actually mean. In terms of humanities, as I explained above, this is a rectifiable problem (caused in large part by the fact that I myself am a mathematician) and one that can be addressed with the help of others and one which I have tried to address myself as well. I would also argue that there are certain things in the draft that specifically benefit the humanities and that improve the situation over the current text of the guideline in regards to the humanities. E.g, especially, the examples discussing using reviews of books, and using WorldCat data (see my posts above), as well as provisions re named chairs and editors-in-chief of academic journals. The bottom line is that, in my opinion, as a practically useful guide for evaluating academic notability, the draft is an improvement over the current text of the guideline, which is rather abstract and rarely invoked in terms of its specific criteria. I would appreciate if people express their opinions on whether proceeding with the replacement now is a good idea. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of any opposition, I installed the new version. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is tons of self promoting trash on WP, especially about pop culture, the Internet community, and other fields. However, I think there is also some pandering to the academic community. Many academics, although they might be wonderful people doing great work for the public benefit, have WP articles that merely report the positions they have held and the papers they have published. The articles are more like resumes and hold no interest for any reader, except in the case that someone wanted to "check up" on the person. Borock ( talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
After looking into a recent COI issue I came across a professor who had recieved a Festschrift, since this is a book honouring a respected academic, should this be considered as criteria to assert notability of an Academic. Gnan garra 04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, all,
I am back from my wikibreak and have finally gotten around to working on the revision of WP:PROF again. As a reminder, a draft version is sitting in my sandbox, User:Nsk92/Sandbox3 and everybody is welcome to edit it. I made a few extra changes, mostly relatively minor, and had taken a look at the entire text. I think it is in not too bad of a shape right now (in any event, more practically useful and informative than the current version of the guideline) and I'd like to get moving on it and if possible, proceed with a replacement relatively soon, if there is consensus.
While we do not need to perfect and iron out every detail, there are a few things that deserve further discussion before any replacement is made:
Please take another look at the text. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 14:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd actually remove the word professor from the article (odd for an article that has an address of WP:PROF I know) and use just academic. Professor is used in so many different ways in some many difference countiries that the generic and more neutral academic is preferable. -- Allemandtando ( talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Should criterion 8 (editor of a major journal) also include, e.g., program chair of (perhaps multiple) major conferences? It fits the same role, I think: peer reviewing at its highest levels.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
David Eppstein (
talk •
contribs)
"Do we need Criterion 6 (major academic/administrative posts, like the University President) at all?" my thinking on this is still no. The rest of the criteria load very heavily on demonstrating the criterion 1 is met, impact of their work/ideas. I think major academic/administrative posts is really very different, more like the notability debates over whether this or that CEO is notable. My thinking is that (much like Cruisio's comment about it being unlikely that panel/committee membership alone would demonstrate criterion 1) that academic/administrative posts alone cannot demonstrate criterion 1, and that a notable egghead in a senior academic/administrative post would be better judged on raw WP:BIO grounds if the major claim to notability is academic/administrative post. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 17:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
For discussion, a suggestion that a preamble/rationale be included. One cobbled together here in nutshell format. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 17:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell:
|
This page in a nutshell:
|
Pete.Hurd ( talk) 17:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell:
|
copied current version from Nsk92/Sandbox to here, prior to welding. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 18:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell:
|
last draft from me for today. Pete.Hurd ( talk) 18:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Current footnote 2 states "journals charging significant fees to their authors for publication do not qualify". What here is "significant"? Most open access journals charge authors between $1000-$3000 for publication of their articles. Do these not classify? -- Crusio ( talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the draft version's "major awards" are much higher than consensus has placed them. I don't think anyone has ever argued that a Nobel laureate or Fields Medal winner is not notable. If these are the level of awards needed for #2, then we don't need to have a #2. I tend to think that winners of awards a couple levels lower (Award winner for best book on Medieval Theology; best article on machine-learning) are usually notable. That level might be too low for some, but I don't think there's consensus for enshrining an award level much higher than that in print. (As a guideline, I think it can include some ambiguity and reflect differences in opinion among people who contribute to academic AfDs). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoops -- wrote a long response about how many profs end up getting a keep based on, say, 4 "probably"s and 2 "possible"s to the criteria without any of them being totally kept. Then went and closed the window instead of saving. In brief: good work on #2! I like the edit that seems to reflect this common outcome. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to formulate a general approach to this, not yet in terms of the proposed criteria, and in starting, Idistinguish several entirely different situations. The central one that we are discsussing is
I. Those people known primarily as researchers within the 21st & late 20th century conventional academic system in the US and Western Europe. (I'm going to use US examples, assume the necessary translation). Here the situation is relatively easy to define. There's am established pattern of rewards, which corresponds roughly to academic rank. We can either use academic rank as a surrogate, or the factors that determine academic rank, which are number and quality of publications. The advantages of using academic rank is that it equalizes between fields--we do not have to consider the publication patterns in different subjects. The disadvantage is that we do have to consider the nature of the different universities. Obvious this criterion in general applies usually only to those in research universities or equivalents, but not all of these are equal. There is a considerable difference between being Professor of Mathematics at Princeton and at University of [ ] State. The first can realistically be assumed to be notable, the second might be, but the assumption cannot be made. There is of course no really reliable rating here--it all goes by reputation, which people attempt sometimes to quantify, without any general validation. We've ben making thesedistinctions routinely in our evaluations, and there is no problem at the high end, but just how far that high end goes down is another matter. At even the best university, some departments are better than others--and it changes with time. There's of course the subsidiary question of what level to use: tenure=associate professor, or full professor. The level we have been using is full, though I could argue for lower. (Obviously some pople at lower levels will be notable from the importance of their work--we even have a few postdocs that have been sustained at AfD.)
The most likely alternative is to go by publications: these can be counted, and the quality of the various academic publishers for books and forthe quality of various journals is generally agreed within a field--and for journals, there's a more-or-less acceptable numerical ranking from JCR. The question then is the count, which is very different in different subject. The standard tenure level for the humanities at the best universities in the US is 2 books, one of which at least must not be based on the thesis. The level for full is of course more, but it isnt that easy to quantify. The level in academic fields varies--at the best places its more than just counting. Fortunately,m there is a usable surrogate for quality of individual articles, the impact factor or h value, if used with full attention to he different subjects (I note the h value will not reflect the situation of a small number of very notable papers--there are dozens of modifications) This sort of evaluation really reuires some degree of subject knowledge--enough to know the publication patterns. We have such knowledge in most subjects, we use it routinely at AfD, and it is usually accepted. For fields where we don't, we go more by analogy.
There are also surrogates for research publications: large research grants, multiple distinguished students, editors-in chief of major journals, important prizes, leadership of major professional organizations. These will always be found to accompany academic productivity of a high order, but are often easier to demonstrate.
There's another possibility: Sometimes we attempt to judge the actual importance of the work, as experts would ion a tenure or promotion or grants committee. (In addition, such judgmnts require other factors we are even less equipped to judge--such a committee also looks into expected future productivity ) This I think a little risky--we have too few people who can do this objectively over the necessary wide subjects so the results are idiosyncratic. There are some subjects where the people here seem to think they have the necessary expertise.
And there is one further difficulty: not all disciplines are necessarily equal. There is an ungenerally unstated feeling here that even in good universities, professors of such subjects as education may be at a lower academic level than in the more conventionally rigorous fields. I don't want to discuss the merits of this position--it's rarely said outright at AfD, but often does clearly affect the evaluation. I don't know how to handle this one--in principle its distinction in the field that matters, not the intellectual merit necessary to give distinction in the field. But I admit sharing some of the common prejudices.
DGG (
talk) 08:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
IIa. Those known for research, but outside the developed country mainstream, are a special case, because, although there are many internationally known figures of true distinction there, there are also many whose importance is present on a national, but not an international standard. We have in the past been sometimes willing to judge on such a national standard in recognition of the developing nature of the academic systems, the need for freedom from cultural bias, and the difficulty of evaluating the equivalence of the evidence. To what extent this is appropriate in a universal encyclopedia renmmains unclear--I see good arguments for either position.
IIb Related, is the problems of people, often from such countries, in fields of study where Western academic standards and ranks and publication methods are not used, in particular the many traditional Islamic or Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist scholars--and sometime also US fundamentalists. I see no way to evaluate t hem, except by apparent eminence in their communities. Even so, the sourcing problem is often impossible, as the sources are unpublished or unavailable. I see no solution until we have increased participation of appropriately knowledgeable editors, who are able to convince the general community here of their objectivity. (The same is of course true of people working in fields sometimes called pseudoscience).
IIIa. Teachers, and administrators, and the like are much harder to evaluate. Administrators, except for the top tanks of university administrators (President, Chancellor, and often Provost-- all in the US sense) they are usually not of particular scholarly note. Unless they have some special distinction that can be proven through good references, they're not likely to be notable (the case of college presidents I discussed a little earlier--they usually do have news sources and local importance in the area, and I think can conveniently be considered always notable). In almost all colleges and universities (again, I use these terms in the US sense, please translate as necessary). As for teachers, in most colleges and many universities, excellent and experienced teachers can attain the rank of full professor with less scholarship than necessary for researchers in the best universities. I find this tricky: I do not consider local teachign awards as meaningful. What can count here are such things as awards on a national basis or national leadership in professional organisations, just as for any profession. There are also textbooks. Though valid, in my opinion ur standards here need to be tightened a little, and that's a separate discussion.
IIIb In some fields of study, there are particular problems. Many Lawyers on the faculty of law schools are noted primarily not for legal scholarship, but for their legal practice, and will need to be evaluated as such--the standards here are not very satisfactory. Physicians, are often primarily clinicians--such designations as "Clinical Professor" are a good indication. Theyll almost always have published a few papers, but need to be evaluated on the notability as practitioners--this is a little vague too, though head of service in a major hospital is usually accepted as a firm indication of notability. Similar problems happen with agriculturalists and engineers and business people. Creative artists who are not primarily scholars are best evaluated on the basis of the artistic work the same as those not in universities--this seems generally accepted here.
Finished for now. I deliberately didn't map these on the current or proposed standards. DGG ( talk) 08:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like this is moving even further in legitimising original research.
Wikipedia covers what others have already written about. i.e. only of there exists a secondary source with coverage of the subject. If there is no independent biographical information on a subject, wikipedia should not be writing the first biography.
We should have no non-source-based criteria. No award qualifies a person for a biography. It is the commentary accompanying the award that qualifies a person for a biography.
Non-source-based criteria is subjective, parochial, and changeable. “Professor” does not always mean tenured, or even “any good”. Many journals charge money. Surviving review is helped by having friends. In some fields, publications and citations are far cheaper than in others. The prestige of awards changes with time, and is also subject to nepotism. Important work may involve only incremental changing. Wikipedians, as uncreditialed voluteers are not appropriate to judge these things. If you personally are well qualified to judge, then consider writing original biographies for http://en.citizendium.org/ . I personally would then be happy to accept a Citizendium biography as a sufficiently reputable and reliable source
There is plenty of independent biographical material out there. It may not be on the net, widely published, or free. Wikipedia already has a bias towards web-sourced subjects, and a real challenge is for it to gather reputable and reliable print-only sources. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a point I left out last night. Before the rise of the modern Western academic system over the period 1800-1900, not only were there many fewer professional academics, but publication standards were much more various, and notability other than by publishing much harder to determine. Technically the standard of being covered by other encyclopedias tends to be met, because the biographical encyclopedias tend to list them all--even if they give very little information (many of our articles on these are copied from deWP, which accepts such sources even without exact citation). It is however extremely hard to find biographical details except for the most distinguished, and we're left with no more than a list of books, whose importance is very hard to determine 2 or 3 hundred years later. I see no solution here except continuing to accept the information in other encyclopedias.
Additionally, my comments on the less developed countries apply to the US before 1900-1920, where most professors in distinguished colleges were not really scholars in a world-wide competitive sense. They are however usually in encyclopedias of the period, though without much in the way of details.
For many oft he historical figures, it's simpler to go by university, for a list of successive holders of a major chair, and assume all of them to have been notable in their period. (I am of the impression the same problem applies to many other early figures in other professions, and is solved more or less the same approximate way..) 00:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
See WP:AN#Mass speedy deletion of Fellows of the Royal Society. Someone added stubs on 60 Fellows of the Royal Society; some other ignorant admin didn't recognize this as a claim of notability and speedied them all. Now undeleted again, so the drama is over, but might be of interest to editors here as an example of what can go wrong if we aren't more explicit about notability when writing new stubs. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Since the discussion has kind of stalled, I'd like to propose that we proceed with the actual guideline replacement in about 5-7 days or so, unless there are objections or someone feels that there are still some significant issues with the revision draft that need to be hashed out further. The draft itself, at User:Nsk92/Sandbox3, can still be copy-edited and tweaked in the meantime and everybody is welcome to do it. Nsk92 ( talk) 17:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I recognize this is a rewrite and clarification along the same lines as the present, not an attempt to do it from a radically different perspective. So considering that, There are some overall problems.I stat these a problems, not that I necessarily have a suggestion--what suggestions I do have will follow.
Details forthcoming. DGG ( talk) 16:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
With great respect for all the work that Nsk92 has put into the rewrite, I think if I had to decide between the current version and the proposed revision, I would go with the current. The current version is quite a bit more general in terms of fields while being shorter. The clarifications made in the new version are helpful, but (nearly?) every example comes from the natural science, engineering or mathematics and thus I think it will create more disagreements when it comes to humanities, arts, and social sciences AfDs than it will clear up. I've tried to find a way to embrace the rewrite, but reading both of them through from top to bottom again now, I don't think I can. --
Myke Cuthbert
(talk) 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to make one more pitch and propose a motion to proceed with the replacement of the guideline by the revision draft (currently at User:Nsk92/Sandbox3). I think that in many ways the draft is an improvement over the current guideline text. Judging academic notability is difficult and I think that the revised version does a better job of indicating what the main quantity to measure is (the impact of one's academic research) and of providing practically useful guidance in evaluating academic notability. I feel that for people who are not academics themselves and who are not academic-related AfD regulars, the revision draft provides distinctly more helpful practical guidance in this regard than does the current guideline. Many of the perennial AfD issues are explicitly addressed and clarified (the definition of an academic and the scope of the guideline, the issues of named chairs, university presidents, collaboration distance, etc). It is true, of course, that the draft is certainly not perfect and has weaknesses such as the issue of undefined adjectives and a bit of a slant towards natural sciences over humanities. However, I think that these weaknesses are ultimately outweighed by the improvements. The issue of undefined adjectives is actually worse in the current text of the guideline and the revision draft does have substantially more examples that clarify what they actually mean. In terms of humanities, as I explained above, this is a rectifiable problem (caused in large part by the fact that I myself am a mathematician) and one that can be addressed with the help of others and one which I have tried to address myself as well. I would also argue that there are certain things in the draft that specifically benefit the humanities and that improve the situation over the current text of the guideline in regards to the humanities. E.g, especially, the examples discussing using reviews of books, and using WorldCat data (see my posts above), as well as provisions re named chairs and editors-in-chief of academic journals. The bottom line is that, in my opinion, as a practically useful guide for evaluating academic notability, the draft is an improvement over the current text of the guideline, which is rather abstract and rarely invoked in terms of its specific criteria. I would appreciate if people express their opinions on whether proceeding with the replacement now is a good idea. Thanks, Nsk92 ( talk) 14:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of any opposition, I installed the new version. — David Eppstein ( talk) 15:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is tons of self promoting trash on WP, especially about pop culture, the Internet community, and other fields. However, I think there is also some pandering to the academic community. Many academics, although they might be wonderful people doing great work for the public benefit, have WP articles that merely report the positions they have held and the papers they have published. The articles are more like resumes and hold no interest for any reader, except in the case that someone wanted to "check up" on the person. Borock ( talk) 00:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)