Talk:Giulio Prisco

Notability
Does every "transhumanist" really merit his or her own wikipedia page? Give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.249.72 (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Despite having worked to improve the wording of the Giulio Prisco article, I agree with the unsigned commentator above that we have to determine whether or not Prisco is notable enough to deserve his own Wikipedia article. If he isn't, I would support deletion. If he is, I would support keeping it. --Loremaster (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The unsigned person who made the deletion proposal is evidently biased, given the statement "Does every "transhumanist" really merit his or her own wikipedia page? Give me a break." Given this bias it seem prudent that the proposed deletion be discarded lest wikipedia open itself to charges of prejudice and censorship. PlanetNiles (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is irrelevant whether or not the person who proposes the deletion of an article is "evidently biased" since we could argue that everyone has a bias. The only thing that matters is whether or not Prisco is a notable enough to deserve an article. --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Prisco is quite notable, espcially in his leadership in Europe and the world more generally in development of applications for virtual worlds, and other advanced information technologies that Wikipedia itself exemplifies. --Samuel Lann (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If what you say is true, you won't have a problem finding and adding reliable sources that confirm the notability of Prisco. --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The idea of deleting GP from wikipedia is quite odd and doesn't parse. He is a foremost publisher of VR applications, a wellknown publicist, active at the highest levels of transhumanism, futurism and various avenues of science. But whats more a factor of consideration - I forward him and many other similar publicists almost on a weekly basis - in fact it has become common practice for me to send a link to wikipedia, linkedin and personal websites for precisely this purpose. It allows me to present who is who. I wouldn't start very casually with suspicion talk, but at some point we are seeing very odd transactions and cycles of self-scrutiny in wikipedia. We can't have that - wikipedia is a valuable presentation device for opinion, factoid, talk, attitude and memes. You can't just start to cut down entries arbitrarily - that will undoubtedly end badly for wikipedia. What would be a better idea is to start working towards a system of hierarchy - rate all entries (or even portions of entries) to a checklist of falsifiables. Have authorities on the topic express their position. Give entries a credibility rating. Allow users to look at conflicting entries, other interpretations and let those face off in terms of ratability and truth value. It's a free market of ideas, yes, not an ideologically driven machine, I hope? --Dagonweb (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to the Transhumanism-related articles, categories, templates, and talk page discussions. Therefore, all content hosted in Wikipedia cannot be:


 * 1) Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a  neutral point of view. You might wish to start a transhumanist blog or visit a transhumanist forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite transhumanist views.
 * 2) Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics, especially those that advance or hinder the goals of the transhumanist movement, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. Wikinews, however, allows commentaries on its articles.
 * 3) Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or transhumanist projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Autobiography, Notability and Conflict of interest.
 * 4) Advertising. Articles about companies and products are written in an  objective and unbiased style. Article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are typically unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify major organizations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Wikipedia neither endorses organizations nor runs affiliate programs. See also Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Those promoting transhumanist causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

That being said, in order to determine the notability of Prisco, we must simply follow the Notability (people) guidelines. --Loremaster (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Pornographic actors Shortcut: WP:PORNBIO

* Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards or from a major pornographic magazine, such as Penthouse, Playboy, or Playgirl, as well as their counterparts in other pornography genres. * Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography, or starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature. * Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. I think these standards might provide some clarity on this topic. --Dagonweb (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you joking or are you serious? I mean when did Prisco become a porn actor? --Loremaster (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Having increased the number of references to a round dozen I've removed the deletion notice. If I can find that many references after a brief period of research I fail to see how the notability of Mr Prisco can be ignored by anyone but the most closed minded of editors. PlanetNiles (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the notice since an article written by Prisco can obviously not be used to confirm whether not he is a notable person. Have you read the Reliable sources guidelines? By the way, I have no problem with there being a Wikipedia article on Prisco (as long as it is well-sourced) otherwise I wouldn't have wasted my time improving this article as its history clearly shows. --Loremaster (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is only one article written by P in the references list. Remove it if you like. The other references are sufficient to notability. I disagree with deleting the article. I will delete the notice again. See "if this template is removed it should not be replaced"--Altdotme (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the deletion notice. Links to blogs Prisco writes, presentations in virtual worlds he had made, and marginal organizations he belongs to cannot be used to determine his notability. According to Wikipedia guidelines, a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. --Loremaster (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the deletion notice again and added links to Le Monde, El Pais and a journal called InteractivaDigital which is fascinating. All these articles reference and quote Mr Prisco; Le Monde and El Pais are the foremost newspapers of France and Spain respectively.  All three articles are independent and secondary source materials.  PlanetNiles (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good. I will not restore the deletion notice. However, I will work to improve the article. --Loremaster (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing about the "El Pais" article is that Mr. Prisco is referenced as a Second Life user, not as an expert on anything or the inventor of anything. Many of us are randomly interviewed by newspapers doing feature articles from time to time, but that doesn't make us notable. Other than the El Pais article, nothing cited on the list is the right kind of third-party source! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.208.14 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Are you joking or are you serious? I mean when did Prisco become a porn actor? " No. Don't be silly. Giulio Prisco is not and has never been a porn actor. To my best knowledge. The idea is ludicrous and I resent your suggesting he is or was. But let me rewrite the guidelines for a similar "minority" medium that suffers from persistent ostracism and censorship. * Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Science awards or Category:Progresivism or from a major scientific or futurist magazine. * Has made unique contributions to a specific futurologic science, such as beginning a trend in forecasting. * Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. I think you will get the general idea. It's clear to me at least GP conforms to equivalent relevance. However it is clear this topic has suffered of such subjective values, possibly even on either side of the debate, that I seriously suggest we close this flow of arguments back and forth for a period of 2 weeks. I suggest you have some other people look at this situation, and your place in it, to make sure prejudice and emotion doesn't play too large a role in it. As I said, I often use wikipedia to describe people and what they do. If wikipedia is intent on reducing its worth by removing links such as this one, I wonder what the added value would be. Finally - for one Giulio I can mention about 50 or so other transhumanists working closely for or with him that do NOT have wikipedia pages. In that area Giulio is an authority, a spokesperson and a central figure. --Dagonweb (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dagonweb, the dispute over the Giulio Prisco article had nothing to with "persistent ostracism", "censorship", "subjective values", "prejudices" or "emotions". Regardless how important Prisco is to you or how prominent he is in the transhumanist community, Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that has basic criteria to determine whether a person is or isn't notable. He or she is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. Regardless of whether or not Prisco has won a well-known science award, has made unique contributions to a specific futurologic science, and has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media, editors must provide reliable, third-party, published sources that confirm that these claims about Prisco are true. Obviously, you are smart enough to understand that we can't accept these claims about Prisco on your word only (especially when you seem to be collaborator or fan of the man...). If sources that have been recently added to the Giulio Prisco article are reliable, it will no longer be at risk of being deleted. --Loremaster (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Giulio Prisco. 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/20071102121233/http://www.interactivadigital.com:80/medios/www/object.php?o=39664 to http://www2.interactivadigital.com/medios/www/object.php?o=39664
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080629121955/http://www.kurzweilai.net:80/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0659.html to http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0659.html
 * Added tag to http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Order_of_Cosmic_Engineers:About
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820070250/http://transfigurism.org/community/blogs/administration/archive/2008/06/04/4626.aspx to http://transfigurism.org/community/blogs/administration/archive/2008/06/04/4626.aspx

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) 11:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)