Talk:Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica

Need for this article
Is this article really necessary? It's little more than a staff list — a staff list isn't suitable material for our encyclopedia. I don't see a list of all Google employees, for example. Nearly all of the names listed are red-linked; it seems to me extremely unlikely that these people will get articles, and certainly aren't notable enough to merit them (I mean, really, the media technician? Come on), which means they shouldn't be linked, at the very least. The two blue links outside the first section link to completely unrelated biographies of people who happen to have the same name (one of them's a snooker player...) I imagine many of these people would be somewhat distressed to find their employment details on a website such as this.

If this list was moved here as a way of removing it from the Encyclopædia Britannica article then I fully support that; however, might it be better just to remove it altogether? – Qxz 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm really about to crash, but I'll take a few minutes to answer this. This article is a stub, to be fleshed out later.  It also allows me to remember accurately how many people are doing any given job at the EB.  Zzzzz... Willow 04:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing to stop you keeping a list in your userspace, or just offline somewhere; I just don't see the need for it as part of the encyclopedia. And even if it is expanded, I still don't think Britannica's employees are all going to end up with articles, so I don't think the names should be linked – Qxz 04:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea; it didn't occur to me that I could keep it in my user space for easy reference. I do intend to flesh out the job descriptions, since the production of a modern print encyclopedia does seem like an interesting topic appropriate for an encyclopedia.  But perhaps I'll do that in my user space, and then restore it here, once I've collected enough data.  (As an aside, the thorough linking was because I didn't want to slight anyone as being "non-notable"; everyone deserves to have their hard work appreciated, no?)  Thanks for the insight and the time you took to review everything, Willow 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Arguably most of the world's population deserves some level of appreciation, including us. But we can't give everyone a neutrally written, balanced, sourced, maintained article, especially in an open, collaborative environment. Hence the need for notability constraints. I think it's much better now, and look forward to your proposed additions – Qxz 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing — a link to Theodore Pappas is fine, indeed there should be one because he has his own article. Feel free to reinsert that at an appropriate point – Qxz 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias
Having said it's better now that it doesn't attempt to name everyone employed by Brittannica, at least until more content is introduced I feel this article is somewhat biased. You get the heading "Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica", a list of job descriptions and then the only section is "Representation of women on the Britannica's staff". To me, that says "point of view" in big red letters. The article appears to exist only to deal with a percieved controversy — I'm not saying that is the case, but it appears like that. And... come on. 47% of the staff are women — given the small number of staff that's as close to absolutely equal as you can get, and it's ludicrous to even hint at a bias. I'm sure if you drew up statistics for the Fortune Top 100 or whatever you'd find most of them far more biased than that, but do they have sections about gender bias in their articles? No. In fact, they don't have separate articles about their staffing arrangements at all. I think the figures are wrong anyway, they say 50% of the art department is female, then at the top it says the art department has 9 members. To be honest I think Britannica would be appalled if it found this article, at least in its current state and that this section should be merged back into the main article, substantially rewritten or removed completely – Qxz 11:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be hard to believe, but the passage was indeed originally intended to be redemptive. Admittedly, I was surprised and somewhat annoyed by the fact that only 6-some% of the 2007 EB's contributors are women.  Since such statistics do not reflect the current percentages in the academic, museum or other expert communities, one is tempted to assume an "old boys' network".  So, believe it or not, this section was trying to set the record straight that the EB does not practice institutional sexism in its hiring; hence, the emphasis on 47% representation.  I'll remove the section, though, since I appreciate how it might be taken, now that the context is no longer there.  I really do appreciate your efforts and I hope that you appreciate how this passage came to be, Willow 13:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand fully; I see it wasn't intended to be negative. Perhaps when the article has a bit more material we can reconsider, the lack of much other content was part of the issue. I wouldn't necessarily object to a mention (fully cited, of course) that only 6% of EB's contributors are women, and if this fact was included, then supplying the corresponding figure for the staff would probably be justified — it does indeed show that there isn't an insitutional bias there, and would ensure that readers weren't misled by the 6% figure. Just keep it to a one-line comment; I disagree with it having a section to itself, and I'm not sure a breakdown of the figure by rank is really necessary either – Qxz 14:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your supportive help and for being understanding; your suggestions are once again excellent. :) I'll try to aim higher as well, Willow 15:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)