Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarkBernstein (talk | contribs) at 15:40, 30 January 2007 (I give up: there is no good faith or civility here.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Pleasantville (talk · contribs) / Cramer, Kathryn Cramer, Kathryn

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. ] (] · ])

Autobiography tizzy

I seemed to be #6 on Alvonruff's list of most popular ISFDB authors without a Misplaced Pages entry, and I'm not an easy subject, so I've started it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea, Kathryn. Please read WP:AUTO and WP:COI. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

"Not a good idea" violates civility and assumption of good faith. The article is non-controversial, there is no NPOV question at issue here, and it's absurd to require writers to seek third parties to submit routine corrections and citations. This page is filled with mean and petty dispute, all of which is pointless and merely calls wikipedia into disrepute. If the editors (or trolls) behind this controversy are simply concerned about WP:AUTO, you may affix my signature to Kathryn's edits of this page. I have no doubt that there are dozens of writers and editors who would be happy to do the same -- and to affix their actual names, not (as you do) a pseudonym. MarkBernstein 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As this is your second edit in Misplaced Pages, I would appreciate that rather than making assertions about how this project should be run and what is appropriate or not, you take a bit of time and learn a bit more about the project before doing so. I have placed some pointers in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I explained the reason for infrequently editing wikipedia in my keynote lecture at WikiSym 2006. I'm quite familiar with the project and how it should be run and I am confident that this is not how it should be run. Cramer has elsewhere offered an excellent discussion of the real needs of editors and scholars for material like this -- material which you would deny the community. The consequence, apparently, will be an imminent fork in which the experts will create a separate resource leaving the pseudonymous trolls to cultivate wikipedia. That's an undesirable outcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talk • contribs) 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Mark, if you are familiar with this project you should be aware of our core policies, including "verifiability" and "neutral point of view". All information in an article, even the names of the subject's parents, should be verifiable by any reader. If the subject of an article adds informatoon which is known only to them then we are just taking their word for unverifiable facts. While the names of parents might be uncontroversial the principle is important. Suppose they claim to have held a certain position or received an award, should we just assume they are right? Further, can anyone be assumed to write a truly neutral article about his or herself? The answer is "no", we can't make that assumption. So we'd be happy if you or another person wrote a verifiable, neutral article about this subject. -Will Beback · † · 01:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has always been NPOV, and only a handful of facts have raised questions of verifiability. Some of the verifiability questions (like the parentage) are well founded. Others have been answered, but the sniping continues unabated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.228.152 (talk • contribs).

This isn't sniping. It's a review. As for neutrality, there were problems with the first version that Pleasantville created. We don't have to go into it. -Will Beback · † · 19:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: Look, whoever you are, this is absurd. Your requests for citations for my parentage academic degrees etc. and requests for citations when citations are already given (did you follow the LINK to the Hugo Semiprozine category? No. You didn't) These are essentially harassment.

Kathryn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleasantville (talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you consider that harassment. Me and others have asked you not to edit your own article. You are welcome to provide material in this talk page. Please read our guidelines about autobiographies ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Try not to get carried away and bite her, Jossi. WP:AUTO is a useful guideline but not a bludgeon to smack people with. Obviously, a person is concerned that an article about them should represent them in a certain way. Let's work with that understanding and a bit more patience. Grace Note 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cite web template

Let me introduce you to the {{cite web}} template:

{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2024-12-25 |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |date= |year= |month= |format= |work= |publisher= |pages= |language= |archiveurl= |archivedate= |quote= }}

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We have asked...

... that you do not edit your own article. But you chose to ignore our guidelines. May you consider stopping editing your article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tidying

I've removed some material that struck me as definitely not notable or relevant, but I'm wondering whether there is a general notability concern. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin 23:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So my blog is cited in the New York Times, Forbes, the BBC etc. and it's not notable? You are a hoot. What is notable?Pleasantville 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I only looked at the NYT piece, and it quoted you in relation to the Pakistan work, and in quoting you, mentioned your blog. That doesn't in and of itself make your blog notable. It also doesn't in and of itself make you notable.

It would help a lot if you'd tone down the insults you're doling out all over the place. It's actually not much of a hoot to me that I'm spending this time trying to sort this issue out. You shouldn't have created the page in the first place. If you are really notable, someone else would have done so. SlimVirgin 23:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much in the way of insults but I'd urge Kathryn to try to work with Slim, rather than feel she is someone to fight against. Slim's grasp of how things work here will be invaluable to you in getting things done. But Slim, the article is here now. Let's not jump up and down on the person concerned for creating it. Not everyone is clear on the "rules" here and people are obviously concerned to be represented in what seems to them fair terms. We do have articles on people who are not all that important, so it's sometimes difficult for an outsider to understand why they should not be included. Grace Note 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi GN, there have been comments elsewhere from Pleasantville that have been unhelpful; that's what I was referring to. SlimVirgin 08:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

... Such as calling editors that responded on a posting at WP:COI/N "semi-anonymous people acting like jerks", making sarcastic comments about "mind group", posting an attack piece in her blog in which he called these editors "a pack of officious trolls", and being dismissive to all comments made by others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of biblio section

The biblio section is way too long. I woud appreciate to know from the author, what would be a representative sampling of her work, rather the the whole collection of essays, reviews and other such as available here http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?Kathryn%20Cramer

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the standard used at William Connolley should be applied. Of course, Dr Connolley is an admin here so he doesn't get much in the way of bullying from editors for editing his own article, but just about everything he's ever published seems to be on his list. Grace Note 02:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that William Connolley edited that article on his own, and I do not think that when he edited his article that he was an admin. In any case, I am asking the subject of this article to provide a shortlist of the most prominent works that she has published, as to not make this into a catalog. And if you think that the comments made to this person are "bullying" I would suggest that you explicitly say who and when so that it can be properly addressed. Such wide-ranging statements are not helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think repeatedly making the same "request" constitutes bullying, Jossi. Littering an article with demands for sources could also be considered overaggressive. This now seems to be shifting the point of attack. Slow down. Chill out. Grace Note 07:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I

disagree with your assessment. Rather than passing judgment on the behavior of others, you can roll your sleeves and help. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The list that Pleasantville added was taken directly from here, and I've shortened it a little, but I agree it should be shortened further. SlimVirgin 08:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the ISFDB bibio is that parts of it are wrong. I am not an easy bibliographic subject, so some of what I've put here is corrections to what's in the ISFDB. I don't disagree that the biblio could be shortened. If done 2 rounds of shortening it myself.

Also, if you are going to reference Gary Westfahl on hard sf as further reading, please also reference my chapter on Hard SF in the Cambridge Companion to SF: http://cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521816262_CCOL0521816262A018 (ed. Farah Mendlesohn & Edward James.Pleasantville 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If ISFDB is incorrect, Kathryn, it is not up to Misplaced Pages to fix it. You may want to contact the maintainers of that database to get these entries fixed. It may sound counterintuitive, but in Misplaced Pages we speak of "verifiability, not truth". See WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the death of print. The titles pages of the printed books trump ISFDB. Yes? Or does Misplaced Pages had a rule against citing print sources? Regarding a reference for Harvard, see my bio on the Eastgate Systems website which has been that way since about 1994. http://www.eastgate.com/people/Cramer.html Pleasantville 02:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of a book is easily verifiable via its ISBN number. Follow this link, for example: ISBN 0-06113-154-7 , and use the Library of Congress catalog link there. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not title. The issue is authorship. I have multiple books with title page credit but not cover credit. I take it you are not familiar with the term "title page bibliography". Also the online Library of Congress Catalog is incomplete.Pleasantville 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Are these books you've edited or written? SlimVirgin 15:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The titles in question are anthologies which Cramer edited. 71.126.228.152 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder whether we should even be listing them in that case. SlimVirgin 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I would argue for inclusion on "cover credits" only, as per other authors biblio sections. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

I put a conflict of interest tag on this page, it seemed appropriate as the subject started the page and contributed most of the content. Notability also appears to be right on the line. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability is not in question, Daniel. See http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/20277/Kathryn_Cramer/index.aspx?authorID=20277 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's probably written by her too, though. SlimVirgin 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability within the science fiction field is not in question. She is a multiple-time Hugo nominee, to name her most prominent claim to fame. She was a pioneer in hypertext; she is a name to conjure with in some circles. You are definitely verging on personal vendetta here, Slim. The question of self-editing is old news; let's all quit the griping, assume good will for parties on both sides, and concentrate on making this a better article.--Orange Mike 18:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Daniel, SlimVirgin cut most of the referencs to such publications as The New York Times, Forbes, the BBC, the Washington Post, Nature magazine, etc. Um. A helpful hint. Perhaps having a look at a few recent editions of Who's Who in America might prove illuminating and might assist in verifying some of the information I provided. (I myself don't have a copy because I didn't spend the $300 buck to see my name up in lights; I think it was the 2006 edition.) Pleasantville 15:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I cut your reference to your blog. Kathryn, could I ask you to stop self-promoting, please? If you would stop doing that, you'd be in a better frame of mind to understand what we mean by an encyclopedia article. SlimVirgin 15:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note that Who's Who is mostly never used as a reliable source for biographies in WP, due to the "vanity" aspects of these type of publications ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The notability discussion, like the recent attempt to assert that Dave Winer is not notable, is clearly consistent with uncivil personal axe-grinding and inconsistent with Misplaced Pages standards of fairness, civility, and indeed with the traditions of scholarship. Jossi and SlimVirgin, for some reason, continually argue against Cramer's credentials, finding one reason or another to doubt things that are widely known and easily verified. Cramer is incontenstibly the editor of numerous important science fiction anthologies that are widely read and influential. This is not in question. Cramer's NYRSF has been nominated for the Hugo award on numerous occasions. This is not in question. Cramer's early work in literary hypertext is not in question. There is no good faith reason for this controversy. 71.126.228.152 18:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not misrepresent my comments. I never asserted lack of notability. On the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree notability is probably established, that doesn't mean the COI tag should go, the self promotional qualities of this article should not go without notice. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know what is meant by "She is an innovator in the use of digital cartography for disaster relief"? SlimVirgin 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jossi. I'm still not clear on the notability issue. Can anyone say exactly what she's notable for? SlimVirgin 21:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

(a) She and David Hartwell select The Year's Best Science Fiction and have done so for years, making them a leading voice in contemporary science fiction. (b) Her major anthologies on Hard SF and Space Opera have helped define current trends in science fiction and deliniate literary discourse on the future. (c) Her research in reconciling online mapping resources such as Goggle Maps with disaster-related satellite photography has appeared in major publications (e.g. Nature) and, more to the point, was of significant importance in the Katrina aftermath, as it was for some time the sole public source of information on the status of domiciles (and, by inference, their inhabitance) trapped in the flood. (d) She published an influential short hypertext fiction which appeared before the Web was invented, which has been widely taught and reviewed, and she edited other important early hypertext fictions. (e) She's been nominated for a slew of Hugo awards. MarkBernstein 00:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to address the last point, she herself writes that the Hugo award nominations are given to her despite the fact that she does almost nothing for the magazine. Perhaps this is irony, but it's hard to tell. Mark, I also know you know her in real life. I'm really not trying to be difficult, and I'm sorry if I'm being obtuse or offensive, but there's a distinct lack of independent third party sources here, and that concerns me. SlimVirgin 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

My question is has she been the subject of multiple verifiable article in reputable sources? As far as I can tell she receives only a passing mention in the NY Times piece on satellite mapping, beyond that I don't see much in the way of reputable sources for the article to meet WP:NOTE she does appear to have some fans in the Misplaced Pages community, but the sharpness with which they respond to what really seem to be pretty well intentioned actions of editors to improve the article makes me wonder. I don't think anyone her has any thing against Kathryn, but I am not sure this article would pass an AFD. This situation reminds me of a number of AFDs, where a users first action was to create a page about themselves (when they are of fringe notability), the reaction of users unfamiliar with Misplaced Pages is often hostility when confronted with the work of well intentioned editors. I sure would like to see an article in some reputable publication that is focused on Kathryn Cramer, it would help me sleep better at night. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'd like to see. Pretty well everything I've found has taken its information from Cramer herself. SlimVirgin 04:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are abundant books written or edited by Mrs Cramer. You can check Google books for example: . That in itself will make this person notable as an sf author/editor. Besides that, there are several books that mentions Cramer in that capacity. So I would not be concerned with notability issues, but with a good, simple, and NPOV article, removing any material that may not be directly relevant to her notability. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that she has written plenty, but I still fail to see what has been written about her. Writing a lot of books doesn't automatically make one notable, if these books have not garnered her enough attention to make her the subject of any non trivial articles then I can't see enough notability. Book reviews could be construed as being about the author, are there any that we could look at? --Daniel J. Leivick 04:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(ed conf) If you follow the Google books link above, you will find books that refer to Cramer's work, not just books authored or edited by Cramer. I have not explored these in detail, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. She would get a Keep vote from me in an AFD. --Daniel J. Leivick 04:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Kathryn or Mark could help out here by supplying a list of independent third-party sources i.e. independent reliable publications that have published material about Kathryn Cramer that hasn't been entirely supplied by her, or independent book reviews, as Daniel suggests. SlimVirgin 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope; the case has been made, and additional labor will not improve the article or advance scholarship, but will only lead to additional gaming. Books (which you find reason for dismiss), journal and magazine articles (for some reason you "doubt" her role an NYRSF even though she's been nominated for multiple awards as its editor), journal articles, lectures, awards. Fine. Enjoy your power. Go ahead: delete the page. I'm sure that wikipedia will be greatly improved by your vigilance. I have real work to do. There is no good faith here, much less assumption of good faith.

• Articles with connected contributors