72 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2021
  2. Jan 2020
    1. WP:SNOW

      Bureaucratic behaviours

    2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Bouman

      El caso de Katie Bouman en la categoría de Articles for Deletion y mi análisis de los comentarios bajo la categoría inicial de not relevant

    3. she does pass the notability criteria on her own

      Notability criteria

    4. This might be a good place for a speedy decision to be made,


    5. wide variety of coverage in a variety of media

      Coverage Media

    6. article should be trimmed a bit, but deletion is unjustified


    7. Some undue weight, but that doesn't means she isn't notable


    8. Jealous bros should not cry each time a woman is part of an achievement.


    9. the media did give her way too much unasked for credit for a discovery made by a large international team


    10. Recommend editing article to reflect disproportionate amount of press coverage received and reiterate that she is one of the many researchers behind the photograph of the black hole

      Press coverage

    11. Meets criteria under WP:NACADEMIC due to *extensive* press coverage (including multiple secondary sources) over the past 48 hours.

      Criteria Notable Press coverage

    12. it was held recently in the AfD discussion about Saikat Chakrabarti that coverage of other aspects of the person's like (which our article on her details a fair bit of) satisfied those concerns even if the coverage was in news stories otherwise about the "1E"

      Article for Deletion discussion Coverage Notable

    13. the subject meets WP:GNG

      Notable Significant coverage Reliable source

    14. There is an important nuance that you're missing (along with others)—WP:SUSTAINED press coverage is what establishes notability, not a sudden burst of coverage. WP:TOOSOON also applies.

      Press coverage Notable

    15. it isn't indicative of is significance, but that's a different thing


    16. press coverage is exactly indicative of (and more or less synonymous with) notability, as defined by GNG

      Press coverage Notable

    17. not necessary indicative of notability if it is not WP:SUSTAINED


    18. it will be more due to press/social media celebrity

      press/social media

    19. the sources like the NYT note that the press coverage she's received is of outsize significance to her actual role in the project.

      Sources Press coverage

    20. WP:1E is pretty clear;


    21. I don't know that "her story needs to be told" is a justification for a WP article.


    22. the disproportionate level of coverage to her share of the project should be clarified.


    23. Bouman has received substantial focused coverage from many major news outlets


    24. it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia to have the AfD tag on top

      Article for Deletion

    25. WP:SNOW

      Borocratic behaviour

    26. is predicated on non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and there is plenty of that here

      Coverage Reliable sources

    27. WP:BIO

      Wikipedia: Notability (person) Notable

    28. Her notability doesn't hinge on whether she was the principal person behind the the images


    29. This article is much better than many others about non-notable academics!

      Non-notable academics

    30. this is good indication that the Bouman article is notable


    31. Prominent coverage is primarily due to a facebook photo that went viral.


    32. per WP:1E


    33. the press should not have covered her work is original research

      Press Covered Original research

    34. the subject meets criterion 7 under NACADEMIC due to the press coverage

      Criterion (policy) Notable Press coverage

    35. adjust her article to reflect the analysis—in reputable secondary sources—about how the media singled her out as the "hero".

      Secondary sources Media

    36. Her story *should* be on Wikipedia


    37. Bouman has probably been covered in the news in every country in the world

      Covered News

    38. She is obviously notable enough to have a profile on here


    39. And the Washington Post story shifts gears from her role in the black hole image to online trolling focused around her,

      (Press) story Trolling

    40. There's now tons of in-depth coverage specifically about her



      Wikipedia: Notability Wikipedia: Notability (academics) Notable

    42. There is no evidence that she is a "key component"


    43. Easily notable


    44. list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

      Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

    45. list of Women-related deletion discussions.

      Women-related deletion discussions

    46. list of Science-related deletion discussions.

      Science-related deletion discussions

    47. We cover what reliable sources cover.

      Cover Reliable source

    48. Something like that would almost be worth an article itself.


    49. I don't see the policy basis for keeping this page


    50. doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC

      Wikipedia: Notability (academics) Notable

    51. Where do the sources say that she is tenured?


    52. her tenured position at CalTech was announced before the media frenzy this week


    53. I don't support deletion of the article, but the importance of the mediatic coverage and her implication in the M*87 black hole should be explicit as “member of a collaboration of 200 researchers”


    54. Don't you think that this position is a consequence of this mediatic coverage?


    55. She's been featured in almost all coverage


    56. There were at least 200 people with comparable roles and dozens of people with much more notable roles in this event.


    57. WP:1E,


    58. These are guidelines, not policy, and based on the amount of publicity she's receiving, I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have a well-sourced article on her.

      Policy Publicity Well-sourced article

    59. she isn't actually credited with any notable accomplishments herself.


    60. only in the context of WP:1E


    61. there are many reliable sources providing significant coverage of her personally.

      Reliable sources

    62. Bouman's not right for Wikipedia because she "is certainly not notable as a scientist",


    63. Any relevant material can be mentioned there


    64. of WP:1E

      Wikipedia: Notability (people). Notable

    65. Someone who isn't even an assistant professor is certainly not notable as a scientist.

      Notable as a scientist

    66. Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.


    67. The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but anyone who are in some way (remotely) associated with it are not inherently notable.


  3. Jan 2019
    1. actor network theor

      Actors (human or otherwise) function together in systems (networks), and those systems must be observed and described rather than "explained": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor%E2%80%93network_theory

      The notion that a system should be examined prior to bringing in theories and frameworks is also one held by the qualitative research approach called grounded theory (a theory grounded in observed data).

  4. Nov 2018
    1. Instructional Design Strategies for Intensive Online Courses: An Objectivist-Constructivist Blended Approach

      This was an excellent article Chen (2007) in defining and laying out how a blended learning approach of objectivist and constructivist instructional strategies work well in online instruction and the use of an actual online course as a study example.

      RATING: 4/5 (rating based upon a score system 1 to 5, 1= lowest 5=highest in terms of content, veracity, easiness of use etc.)

    1. Distance Education Trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration

      This article explores the interaction of student based learner-centered used of technology tools such as wikis, blogs and podcasts as new and emerging technology tools. With distance learning programs becoming more and more popular, software applications such as Writeboard, InstaCol and Imeem may become less of the software of choice. The article looks closely at the influence of technology and outcomes.

      RATING: 4/5 (rating based upon a score system 1 to 5, 1= lowest 5=highest in terms of content, veracity, easiness of use etc.)