Talk:Annalee Newitz

Question
You actually wrote a Wikipedia entry on yourself? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RedSix (talk • contribs) 19:33, December 13, 2006 (UTC)
 * No, she didn't write it. --Elonka 19:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This is more suited to Linkedin than an encyclopedia. Pretty cringey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.24.216.2 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sources, or Lack thereof
I've tagged this article as containing original research and being unsourced. While I do not think the page contains any unsourced *perjorative* claims; it is clearly a major violation of WP:BLP and thus needs non-trivial verifiable sources rather than the current original research. Bigdaddy1981 00:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is primarily concerned with negative information. I have spoken directly with Newitz, and she has confirmed the accuracy of the information in the article. I agree that it's better to have sources, and if you feel that strongly about it, unsourced information can definitely be removed per WP:V if you wish to challenge it. But I see no WP:BLP violation here. --Elonka 19:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree WP:BLP is in spirit more concerned with negative information and as I indicted above, I agree that there are no unsourced pejorative claims; however, WP:BLP does stress the importance of Verifiability and No original research - I don't want to insist that all unsourced comments in the article be deleted out of hand but I do think it's important to eventually have all claims in it sourced. Bigdaddy1981 05:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is indeed concerned with pejorative information, but it is also concerned with accurate information. Unsourced information is unverifiable, and so its accuracy is suspect.


 * And the statement "I have spoken directly with Newitz, and she has confirmed the accuracy of the information in the article" is an indication of editorial ignorance and a problem with the article, and no hint of a solution. (Just as Jimbo's personal experience at a gala is inappropriate basis for editing an article about that person/event, just as useless/meaningless is the personal experience undergirding the foregoing statement.) What matters are published verifiable sources.


 * WP policy states that another editor's challenge to material is sufficient to allow it to be removed. Consider this unsourced material challenged by two editors now. Source it, or expect it to be removed.


 * And note, in an earlier editor conflict the point was made (and held up by Administrators) that if material is removed from a BLP article for lack of sourcing, the person returning to the content to the article takes on the responsibility to add the citations that have been called for. One cannot simply revert in this case. So, citations will be added, either early, to prevent removal of the material, or eventually, if one wishes to return it. It is up to the proponents of the material to provide acceptable, verifiable sources (i.e., not try to add confidence by appealing to unverifiable personal conversations). Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Last issue at Alternet
I've just read the latest "issue" of Alternet and she is writing her last column for that 'zine. Verifiable at wwww.alternet.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Notability
"[N]othing is too minor to be in [Wikipedia]. Everything should be noteworthy." (SF Bay Guardian, Techsploitation column: 'Wikipedia Activism', 2007-06-05 -- http://www.sfbg.com/2007/06/06/wikipedia-activism)

Perhaps there's a way this could be saved? It's not like it's unrelated to the entry at hand! Newitz's lead descriptor currently states that she "covers the cultural impact of science and technology." A quote about how Wikpedia intersects with our cultural history seems very apt for an entry on a technology & culture commentator. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In my book it's a trivial opinion about something; we might as well include her opinion on what toppings go best on toast. The article linked would be considered a primary source, I believe.  Now, if a reliable 3rd party source uses that quote as part of something, it would become notable (sourced through that article, not directly to this quote).  Most of the other articles I've seen that mention people's opinions of Wikipedia are sourced and written in terms of real world impact (see Stephen Colbert (character)'s article). On a side note, her comment in that article that disk space, etc is not an issue on Wikipedia is sadly lacking in understanding in technology; disk space is always a factor, especially when you suggest including infinite articles!  She needs to read WP:NOT.  DP 76764  (Talk) 18:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On second glance, this may be includeable under WP:SELFPUB or if it is a professionally written piece (edited by an editor) and not just a blog entry. It would be a better item if it were cited by other sources, but that's probably not 100% necessary for inclusion. Go ahead and add it!  DP 76764  (Talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This was published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian newspaper, not a blog. I will add it and perhaps someone can find more third party sources than blogs. 64.183.41.146 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've removed this quote as, ironically enough, I think it's too minor and trivial to belong in her biography. It could be included if there are sources to show that she's a notable commentator on Wikipedia, or that other people have commented on her views; but as it is I don't see why this opinion is particularly important or worthy of inclusion. Robofish (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

io9.com "Banning" claims by DroidCLH
DroidCLH: If there is a published article online that discusses this aspect of Newitz' editorship on io9.com, please cite to it. Otherwise, you are simply adding personal abuse to the entry. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Took a quick look and found these references:

http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html

http://www.comicmix.com/news/2009/11/30/is-io9-censoring-science-fiction-writers/

Comicmix might be a decent source. It looks reputable and has an article specifically covering what you're talking about. However, it doesn't mention Newitz by name - perhaps you might consider addressing this on the discussion board for the io9.com Wikipedia entry. On the other hand, this may not really be a notable issue. (Please note that Newitz responded in the Comicmix article's comments section with a very welcoming and inclusive invitation to address any banned contributors' concerns.) 76.169.140.29 (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is going to need a much better source to be included in this article. Blogspot is not generally a reliable source.  Please consider WP:BLP as well!  DP 76764  (Talk) 02:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree Blogspot is no good, though Comicmix seems possible. Still, without a much stronger, reliable source - which mentions Newitz by name - it just seems like static on the page. 76.169.140.29 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Short stories
Should we start work on articles for her two short stories?--DrWho42 (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed Anders image, discuss here
Anders image, a second significant sized image whose focus in not the article subject, was removed as superfluous. It is appears to be a non-professional candid, which does not disqualify it as encyclopedic; however, the poor photojournalism of the photo does, as it poorly presents the purported article subject Newitz—showing the subject off center, and at odd angle, indeed as a sidecar to partner Anders. The photo otherwise contributes nothing to our understanding of Newitz, alongside the clear, single-subject photo appearing above it. Note, there is a wikilink to a separate page for partner Anders (where an Anders-focused image would be appropriate). For an article of this length, a second photo with poor presentation of the title subject is unnecessary and indeed harmful to the encyclopedic presentation of the article. Return photo only with justification, please. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting the sourcing issue
See above, the section entitle "Sources, or lack…" for an update on the issue regarding lack of sources at this BLP article. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary of recent changes, pt. 1
This is to summarize what was done and why, so we can avoid conflict -- so other editors can hone in on what they actually do and don't like, rather than reverting the arduous work, en masse. So, here is what was done:

1. External links. No change.

2. Citations. These are now more numerous, and uniform in quality -- no dead links, complete with all info including authors, no bare URLs, etc. Refs. 3, 4, and 8 are new (covering a dead citation, and the dissertation and her first book). Maybe not the in the most popular citation format, I don't do templates, but if one wishes to convert, at least all the info is now here. Since it is now clear who actually wrote each article being cited, is also clear three earlier citations used for biographical info were self-authored (a BLP no-no), and so they are tagged for replacement.

3. Personal life. This is a new section here, though standard in such articles. Stubbed in from stray sentences in two other paragraphs. Moving them here makes remaining material at both place more encyclopedic.

4. Further reading. New section here, of further unused references, created from two origins. Frst, articles cited earlier that did not actually say what the text said to which they were attached. (If I had left in place, these would have needed tags, and rather than do this, I replaced the errant citations, moving the errant ones here.) Second, if an interview was cited, I also moved it here (because interviews are in essence self-authored content, and so not considered the best biographical information); better to have a biography say "she went to Berkeley, which implies a journalistic standard, and some checking, that to have an interview say "I went to… ".  Interviewss are verifiable, yes. broadly reliable as sole source for historic, factual content, no. So, third party records were substituted for interview information, when possible.Entries in this section are now all uniform in style, now, as well.

5. Published works. Existing section. Edited to remove entries that were not really published works. Some material moved up to new section on work founding new venues, see below. Rest went into career section. What remained is (a) now in date order from oldest to newest. and (b) completely uniform in style (to the point of filling in missing details for each, e.g., Doubleday as Scatter publisher, etc.) One citation was removed from this section -- the only citation here -- because it was misplaced. (It was an article ABOUT the article subject, and not BY the article subject, and so wrong for this section; it was moved to further reading.) Because the short stories have citations, the ""BLP ref improve | section" was the appropropriate signal to send, that this section needed sourcing.

6. Venues founded or created. New section, a subset of the information that was earlier under Published works, but is distinct. Uniform format, oldest to newest.

Will continue tomorrow, with explanation of 2nd picture removal, and remaining edits. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 04:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Annalee Newitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150302182434/http://www.techsploitation.com:80/about/ to https://www.techsploitation.com/about/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219225348/https://ksj.mit.edu/fellows/2003/newitz-annalee/ to https://ksj.mit.edu/fellows/2003/newitz-annalee/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219232910/http://gawker.com/5990638/newspapering-is-a-business-the-death-of-the-legendary-boston-phoenix to http://gawker.com/5990638/newspapering-is-a-business-the-death-of-the-legendary-boston-phoenix
 * Added tag to https://www.science20.com/florilegium/blog/timesonline_eureka
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314122613/http://www.alternet.org/columnists/2188/ to http://www.alternet.org/columnists/2188/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117034333/http://www.gettingit.com/author/49 to http://www.gettingit.com/author/49

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annalee Newitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160517001706/http://sfist.com/2005/05/23/interview_annalee_newitz.php to http://sfist.com/2005/05/23/interview_annalee_newitz.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Annalee Newitz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219224315/http://blogcritics.org/book-reviewinterview-pretend-were-dead-capitalist/ to http://blogcritics.org/book-reviewinterview-pretend-were-dead-capitalist/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a very bad idea to change writing style if the subject happens to prefer it
I was at first confused when I saw the pronoun "they" being used in this article every place there is a reference (apparently) to its subject, Annalee Newitz.

But Wikipedia does not exist as the plaything of the subject of each article, or to suit the personal preferences of whoever may be writing or editing the article.

Please can someone knowledgeable about the subject please edit the article so that references to its subject use the conventional "she"?

If the subject, or whoever wrote this, prefers to use "they" for references to persons of known sex, then by all means let them do this in their own writing, and by all means let them advocate for this kind of style change in their private lives.

But please, not on Wikipedia.2600:1700:E1C0:F340:DFD:D87A:615D:E30F (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Please see this article: wp:GENDERID CiaraCat (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This Newitz article is listed in 7 categories using the word "women," such as "American women journalists." Her gender is apparent and used to afford her status within these Wikipedia categories. This would suggest using "she" is reasonable. Otherwise this Newitz article should be deleted from all gendered categories.


 * "They" is used for the singular when the person referenced is indeterminate. To avoid using "she" it seems best to use Newitz's last name. This seems to be the strategy in some paragraphs, currently, but not all. The repeated use of "they" is extremely awkward, in my opinion, and serves to foreground that Newitz is a "she," distracting readers from the actual information about a subject that an encyclopedia is meant to convey. 71.47.9.218 (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, "they" is incorrectly interpreted as a plural pronoun in some places in the article. For example, "As of 2019, they are a contributing opinion writer at The New York Times." This should read "...they is a contributing opinion writer..." as "they" is being used to replace "she." Again, "they" is extremely awkward, and apparently challenging to use even for a writer who seems to be acting in good faith. The use of the last name again seems preferable to "they."


 * Wikipedia is educational and it shouldn't be assumed that readers are native English speaking grad students with their fingers on the pulse of the W.E.I.R.D. avant garde. 71.47.9.218 (talk) 21:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * If you see inconsistency within the article, please edit to fix. This is an article about a living person and reflects the subject’s preferred pronouns in accordance with Wikipedia policy: wp:genderid. If you disagree with this Wikipedia policy, please post in the policy discussion page. This article is not the place to change the Wikipedia standard. CiaraCat (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * No, that's not how English works. If that idiotic so-called "policy" mandates rejecting biology and basic English grammar, then it should be ignored. The article subject is a woman, and she does not get to dictate how pronouns are used. That's not how language works. You don't get to choose your own pronouns. Sorry, but facts don't care about your feelings. Wikipedia is not the place to enforce your deranged neo-Marxist political ideology. Also, "they" is not a valid gender identity. Here is a list of the two gender identities: 1) Male. 2) Female. Therefore, your silly policy doesn't even apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.226.42.73 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

"They". Jesus Christ.
Fucking lunatic nonsense. If you choose to reply, please refer to me as "Your serene omniscience", it is my preferred pronoun and by Wiki policy you MUST use it. 70.163.147.152 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability
It seems like the majority of the sources here cite the subject's own work. I struggle to see the subject meeting WP:AUTHOR; I see no wide citation, no new concept or theory, no preservation in museums. As far as I can see, they're a finalist for a handful of scifi awards and won a niche one but their books and articles are not widely independently written of or made the subject of an independent work. Perhaps the relevant content could be merged into Gizmodo and Lambda Awards. — Amitabho Chattopadhyay   talk  15:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)