Talk:Cosma Shalizi

Untitled
This scientist has contributed a major algorithm to the analysis of discrete time-series, and was ranked by Nature as a top-50 blogger.

If the "major algorithm" you are referring to is the CSSR algorithm then an article ought to be started on it. Otherwise, I concur with another contributor to this page that the entry on this person be deleted. Skinnerd (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Why was this individual given a Wikipedia article?????
I know that attempts have been made to remove this article. It barely escaped deletion last time, due to two moderate votes in favor of keeping the article. However, it is clear to me that this individual has not really made any significant advances in the field of computer science. How do I know this? I looked him up in the Web of Science. I found that he only has about 60 citations, which is not notable in any way. Furthermore, I find it ridiculous to give someone an article just because they write a blog on the internet that a lot of people read. By the way, although Nature may have listed him as a "top blogger," he has never published anything in this journal, nor has he published in Science. There are thousands of other researchers who routinely publish in these journals. Boab (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Shalizi is notable mainly because of his internet presence, and being nominated in the top 50 science bloggers by Nature in and of itself makes him much more notable than the great majority of the "thousands" of people who have merely written articles in Nature. Related to this, his "notebooks" are, having been online since 1994, an early example of a proto-blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.228.200 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

50 popular science blogs (written by scientists)
Recently an editor removed a mention of Shalizi's blog having received a recognition by Nature in 2006. Though Nature's remark on Three-toed sloth dates from 2006, I think it's still worthwhile to mention it, since it serves as a form of external review. It appears that Nature took a blog ranking from Technorati to establish popularity, and then tried to pick the 50 blogs highest in the list written by working scientists. Unless the reference is restored, the term 'popular' has no support, and may be disparaged as WP:PEACOCK language. I suggest that the reference be restored, but that more careful wording be added to explain it. EdJohnston (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Page should be deleted
Subject has not advanced beyond Associate Professor after many years. Seems unreasonable to retain page based solely upon his “web presence” which consists of little more than a garden-variety academic blog (Three Toed Sloth) which does little more than summarize abstracts of recent academic literature written by other scholars.

No other notable / meaningful contributions to the field.

Seems to be more of a “fluff and self-promotion” article. 2600:1004:B11A:228B:E9F6:27:9EF9:E085 (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)