Talk:Will Wilkinson

Update
I'm the subject of this entry. A lot of this is out-dated now. I'd change it myself, but I understand that's frowned upon. So, is there a process by which I can suggest revisions to the entry that others can review and make if suitable? Thanks.

-- I updated some facts about this, including added that you are now an MFA student at Univ of Houston. Haven't followed your work enough to know all your current affiliations.

--Considering I just made a change to the entry concerning your Canadian-American-ness, I'd be happy to hear what you actually prefer/profess and whatever else you want updated. Kimcmich (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Departure from Cato Institute
This article suggests Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey were fired from the Cato Institute for ideological noncompliance: http://www.frumforum.com/the-purge-at-cato Lippard (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
Reading the proposed delete tag again, I saw that I could prevent deletion just by deleting it, so I did that, since I think my additions improved the case for notability enough to make it clear. I think the entry is now a somewhat worse, hwowever, since a lot of the added information you would include not so much for the sake of a reader looking for information, but for an editor proposing to delete it. But I guess that's how this works.

--Slangshot (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC) I oppose deletion and even consider the proposal a little puzzling, just glancing at it. I've followed Will's blog, and his other work, a long time and was amazed to see the proposed deletion flag. Wilkinson is a fellow at a major think tank, regularly appears on Marketplace, which is major media, has a weekly video blog show in which he has interviewed a number of bestselling authors (he's not just talking to his friends). He's published in a lot of places. Though I think it now seems unduly promotional (could this be an unintended side-effect of notability challenges?), I added some links to major media in which Wilkinson is cited as an expert, and included some public appearances at debates and forums where it seems like the fact that he is there at all establishes a kind of notability. How many people have debated Jeffrey Sachs? Regarding BigTurtle's comment, Wilkinson seems to me a significant young public intellectual, as the David Brooks New York Times column mention noted by BinaryBits would seem to attest. He also has a blog, but he's not primarily "a blogger". I'm new to this, so I don't know if I did all the code right. Sorry if not. But I wanted to do something because it seems a pretty clear case to me. Thanks.

--Slangshot (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the deletion of this page. After watching bloggingheads.tv, I searched for Wilkinson's wiki page to find out more about him. I represent an independent interest in this page.

Danieltmasterson (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It is true that Mr. Wilkinson is a thoughtful, intelligent blogger who is connected with a serious policy organization. However, Wikipedia probably does not have room for all of the thoughtful, intelligent bloggers who are writing in English right now. Therefore I support this deletion. Bigturtle (talk) 19:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, actually it does. It definitely does have the room. --J.Dayton (talk) 21:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to register a formal vote on this since Will's a friend of mine, but his mention by David Brooks certainly boosted his notability. Binarybits (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Bigturtle said: "Wikipedia probably does not have room for all of the thoughtful, intelligent bloggers who are writing in English right now." I would argue to the contrary, as well as reiterate that Wilkinson is not merely a blogger. Lippard (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Notability
The refs are either authored by WW or a passing mention. Not seeing how it passes notability by either WP:JOURNALIST or the general notability guideline. Anyone have sources that are actually about him as a figure? czar ⨹   23:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are not a lot of source of him as a figure, but I do not think that should be a requirement. The fact that he has been a relatively prominent and cited policy wonk should make him notable enough. For example almost any week you can find some reference to his work in a major publication. For example, thisNew Yorker article was only a week ago. He's also routinely cited in the blogosphere in places like Marginal Revolution or semi-highly cited policy papers like [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=999653 this. ] I think that he might be on the edge of notability but probably crosses the line into something we should attempt to keep. Dark567 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I invite to discuss their concerns here. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, please discuss Jim1138 (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * No comment by Confusingfuture yet? Perhaps the content should be restored. Also, no discussion has been started on the tags so perhaps they should be removed. Jim1138 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * also notifying. Jim1138 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the coverage needed to meet notability guidelines either. In depth coverage is indeed a requirement. Being cited a lot helps, but we need to know why he is cited. 331dot (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

WW here. The notability requirements around here are slightly mysterious to me. Here's some perhaps useful and relevant information. Prior to my current job, I was a US Politics Correspondent for the Economist, for which I've written hundreds of pieces. Starting in April 2018, I became a contributing opinion writer at the New York Times. Here is my bio page there. Cheers. Will Wilkinson (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's been 4 years since this comment and nothing else has really been added since. I don't see how this article doesn't end up deleted.
 * For WP:JOURNALIST he clearly doesnt meet #2, #3, #4. #1 I'd like to see some evidence or examples that his work is widely cited, because nothing I've found indicates that. 2600:6C54:7900:CD7:E9AC:2A0:2DA4:3096 (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * At this stage, this should be deleted. This person is not notable on any level.  5 years ago he was a vice president at a second tier think tank.  He was fired.  He’s a bitcoin person now. 136.54.105.96 (talk) 01:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wilkinson with fresh A-level opinion piece in the NYT

 * The Self-Destruction of Paul Ryan and the G.O.P. — 13 April 2018

Paul Ryan and the fate of the G.O.P. is an A-level topic in the current news cycle (as hard as it is to crowd yourself onto the standing-room-only double-decker bus lately).

This level of editorial invite into the national limelight is not a dime a dozen.

It has always frustrated me about Wikipedia's notability guidelines run counter to the age-old wisdom: show, don't tell.

The concept is often attributed to Russian playwright Anton Chekhov, reputed to have said "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."

That's a paraphrase of what we have from Chekhov directly, but it stands the test of time.

Here we have the glint of light on broken glass. And out there, for some reason, the world is too busy admiring the broken glass for anyone important to bother tweeting (at minor article length) "nice, bright moon tonight" (to serve what other point, exactly?) so that we can legitimately note the impressive illumination event here.

But there it is, Wikipedia's notability guidelines have a weird, otherworldly, tell-centric fixation, and thus debate ever rages between literate pragmatists and Chekov-schmekov literalists.

This does nothing to alleviate the sword of Damocles that some scissor-wielding literalist decides to snip the slender thread (entirely within his or her letter-of-the-law legal rights, I might add), but it does to my mind entirely put to pasture the hoary "no room at the inn" speed-merchant blow off. &mdash; MaxEnt 18:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the point is that we are editors, not journalists. Our role is to identify the journalism that shows us the basis for notability, to tell of the showing. Our role is not to point to the moon, but to point to the finger pointing to the moon. It is a tedious, mundane role, not an enlightening one. It is not for everyone. Jojalozzo (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)