Talk:Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed

Information about this edition
Edition:	2013
Source:	London School of Economics
Contributor(s):	-- Cirt (talk)
Level of progress:
Notes:	"Wikipedia is pushing the boundaries of scholarly practice but the gender gap must be addressed". Adrianne Wadewitz. (9 April 2013). Impact of Social Science. London School of Economics.
Proofreaders:	—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 07:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)--Erasmo Barresi (talk)

Statement by photographer Ragesoss

It's certainly fine by me (the photographer) to use or modify that image. --Ragesoss (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't access the original blog post, but if the issue how a version of this same image was used there, I had invited Adrianne to use that image however she liked in any circumstances. And as Cirt notes above, it's freely licensed on Commons and derivatives are fair game.--Ragesoss (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Statement by photographer, Ragesoss, -- on use of image File:Wikimania 2012 portrait 102 by ragesoss, 2012-07-13.JPG -- per diff1 and diff2. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Featuring a blogpost? Really?

I thought Wikisource was about making texts available to the public. This texts is already available on it's source itself. Is this really an example of the best Wikisource has to offer? A copy of a blogpost? TorbenTT (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinion, TorbenTT (talk • contribs), but this was published by the London School of Economics. -- Cirt (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are you assuming I wasn't aware? TorbenTT (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And it's by a PhD who was in a Postdoctoral fellowship. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The point being? It's still freely available blog post. I don't object to it's notability, I object to it being featured. It is not an example of Wikisource expanding the mass of freely available texts or in anyway showcasing the purpose of Wikisource. Archiving blog-posts is something web.archive.org does better and more efficient. TorbenTT (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@ TorbenTT. Remember that everyone here is a volunteer and if something isn't done right in your thinking then you can fix it. When you're done give a heads up and someone else can fix what you did. —Maury (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes and with that in mind there was an open discussion, by the community, that closed after over four (4) months time for availability of those who wished to participate and comment. In the end before closure there was unanimous Supports and zero (0) opposes. The result was this page was promoted to Featured status. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:William Maury Morris II What are you talking about? I can't fix a consensus having decided that this wikification of a short, freely available blogpost is somehow an example of the best wikisource have to offer. TorbenTT (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

TorbenTT, we have a process for this, and there was a unanimous decision in favor of featuring. -- Cirt (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, why are you asuming I am unaware? An unanimous decision is still open to criticism. TorbenTT (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I must say I agree with TorbenTT, this was a poor choice both because of its origin (blog, i.e. an already digitized text) and content (a feminist tract). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Please explain your characterization regarding your assessment of the document in the last part of your statement and why you feel that way. -- Cirt (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource does not have a concrete guide of what to write and who to include that could be inspiring and knowledgeable to the readers. There are authors way back when or authors who are leaders where their pages are empty. They are introduced as leaders with their pictures but I haven't seen a book or article under their name. Also they are digging authors 50- 100 years ago so as not to be convicted of copyright infringement. I know the protection is usually 50 years after one's death but even then they have relatives and these relatives have to be consulted before getting their work published. They must make a move of announcing it in newspapers or direct contact - how about if there was a written agreement that his great great great great grandson has the sole right for that publication. wikipedia will be losing a lot of money here. It would be nice if living authors will be given a priority at least you get permission from them no copyright violation... Luisagaga (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Cirt: - feminism is a rather fringe and politically abused ideology and it seems to be that the only reason why this particular piece is featured is to promote it. Judging by a number of women-victimhood articles on your user page you seem to be ideologically invested to defend it. Personally I think that the theory of "inherent bias" of men is pure projection, but that's just me. Anyway, this is not the proper venue to discuss the merits of the article itself (not that I wouldn't have loved to - it's a fun subject). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ivan Štambuk (talk • contribs), for sharing your opinions and point-of-view, your assumptions of mine based on a few primary-source-documents that I've added here locally to Wikisource, though amusing, are inaccurate. I agree with you that this talk page is not the proper venue for further discussion of the merits of the article itself. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

An example

Anyone with a written work of this?... https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Aaron I can't get any information... I am imagining what it has but it does not exist... I see a picture- is this the more important aspect then why under author? What will I do here then- after I click on the author's name under the a category. Just like in any wikipedia article it has to be informative, well structured, correct contents with inline citations. This has to be placed in -the under construction section- because we are wasting our time clicking on pages where there are nothing to offer. Who ever did this as a decision is so poor.Luisagaga (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but this particular talk page is not the right place to discuss that. You're better off asking your question at WS:Scriptorium. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)