Talk:Deniz Kandiyoti

Who is the author?
Another Puff? Who wrote this? Another instance of self-promotion by an obscure academic, one of the many now flooding Wikipedia? Why aren't we informed as to who wrote this? Wikipedia really must introduce a policy of insisting that posters of an entry for a living person identify themselves, or else readers will suspect - rightly in many cases - that the poster is either the subject him/herself, or a client/subordinate of the same. 29 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.185.135 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here, we comment on the contributions rather than the contributors, and make suggestions for improvements. If you wish you can check the edit history of any page on wikipedia by clicking the history tab on top. For your convenience, here is a direct link to the history of the main page of this talk page: The person even has a book about her written by someone else. Wikipedia has the 'reference'/'footnote' system. Just click those superscripted numbers which would lead you the relevant footnotes. Usually footnotes are references to a source. As the content is the important thing in a contribution (not the identity of the contributor, as long s/he is reliable), we do not want to see the names of contributors, we want to see the names of sources. I don't see any reason to think that Deniz Kandiyoti is a wiki editor. Besides, anyone notable enough can have a wiki article, including wiki editors. User:Jimmy Wales and User:Elonka come to my mind.  DenizTC 15:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You have missed the point entirely. The edit history hides, not reveals, the identity of the poster; neither does it indicate what the criterion is for the inclusion of the subject of the entry. I could, for example, construct an entry for my dog, and put this on wikipedia, claiming that in my eyes the animal is a noble and excellent canine, the best of its kind. The footnote system to which you refer merely indicates that the subject of the entry has written some articles. (I’m not sure the claim that she ‘even has a book about her written by someone else’ is correct: the references are to an interview with her published in a journal) There are huge numbers of people who teach and research in academic institutions who don’t simply fulfill but exceed this condition (writing articles), and – as yet – we do not see their names up in lights on wikipedia. To assert that ‘anyone notable enough can have a wiki article’ merely begs the question of who decides who is ‘notable enough’. Until those who police entries on wikipedia formulate, draw up and then enforce a code of practice regarding who qualifies for an entry and why, it will continue to be a magnet for fame-seeking individuals wishing – either directly or indirectly (through clients or subordinates) – to promote or boost their image. This is a problem, one that applies especially to academics, and it will not be solved by assertions that those described as ‘notable’ constitute a natural category. 29 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.185.135 (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to disagree. If you do not trust people, just check. We have "assume good faith" policy here. If you have suggestions about wikipedia in general, please do it somewhere else, this is not the place for it. I assume you came here with the random article button, you should not expect to find something you are interested with that button. We have over 2 mi articles here. I suggest you lurk around the articles you are interested in for a while, and see how things go, and then start editing if you wish to do so (You can see the welcome page). Afterwards, if you still do not enjoy it here, you can go to Citizendium (if you are eligible to edit there), or to Uncyclopedia (if you want to see a funny version), or Wikinfo for a different approach, or you can create your own wiki. We have many editors, and through consensus bunch of rules are created that will take care of most of your concerns. DenizTC 08:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Your ‘answer’ is naïve and – yet again – evades the issue, which is the degree to which wikipedia has become an arena for self-promotion. To state that you ‘assume good faith’ is naïve, and rather like saying that a lamb entering a cage full of tigers has nothing to fear (‘I just know they won’t eat it’). The claim that you operate with a ‘consensus bunch of rules’ is evasive: what are these rules, and – to repeat the earlier question which you still have not answered – how is it decided who is ‘notable enough’ to get an entry? Your assumption continues to be that those deemed ‘notable’ and therefore worthy of an entry form a natural category. They do not, and until the rules governing who merits this kind of entry – a ‘famous’ academic, in other words – are made clear and public, the suspicion will remain that no such rules exist. Success in academic life depends on reputation, and reputation is generated by image inflation and self-promotion (either by the self him or herself, or by a client), usually a combination of the two. For this reason, entries about many obscure and ordinary academics have flooded wikipedia, in the course of which a number of unfounded claims have been made by those anonymous posters – who are they? – responsible for this. If you don’t believe me, look at the discussion pages for the entries about Michael J. Watts and David Harvey. 01 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.185.135 (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are missing the point, Le Kippois is dedicated to trolling wiki entries so as to attack those who might want to make a helpful entry or two...I imagine the Kipster wants to see wikipedia solely dedicated to being the go-to source for information on the Britney Spears of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.207.97.7 (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, you give yourself away by classifying attempts by subordinates/clients to inflate the reputations of ordinary academics as ‘those who might want to make a helpful entry or two’. Formulating puffs in this manner – at whose behest, one wonders? – is about as ‘helpful’ as PR. In other words, special pleading that should be seen as what it in fact is: a form of advertising (‘buy my product, I’m famous’). 30 November 2007

Le Kippolinger: I bow down to your brave assault on the wikipedia puffers. If only it wern't for the exhaulted status that an open-access online encyclopedia has in academia, it would certainly be more of a meritocracy than it is currently. Keep up the good fight!201.207.97.7 (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the person who wrote this entry. The person is an undergraduate student who does not know Deniz Kandiyoti personally and does not belong to the same institution as her either. --Mankad (talk) 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

None of which, of course, means that what that person says is wrong. Good to see that others - especially the more discerning undergraduates - have spotted what is going on.... 28 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.186.21 (talk) 21:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Deniz Kandiyoti. 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/20041226053931/http://www.soas.ac.uk/outreach/expert.cfm?navid=117&contactid=113 to http://www.soas.ac.uk/outreach/expert.cfm?navid=117&contactid=113

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) 01:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)