Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Stagnitta

Susan Stagnitta - Non-notable librarian whose only claim to fame is pointing out the blindingly obvious. - 15:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC) Lee (talk)
 * Well, what do we do about material that would not be interesting except that it relates to the history of Wikipedia itself? Do we already have some kind of place for that? She is one of a number of challengers who have popped up in the last week or so. Wikipedia is now attracting enough notice to be the subject of discussions in the "real world." This article is stubby (and has POV problems). I would not say that she is notable enough to have an article in the main namespace, yet I am not at all comfortable with the idea of simply deleting this. I think it should be a merge and redirect, but into what article? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:28, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think this is a pretty devious article. She's the one quoted by the Syracuse paper, isn't she?  I really don't like mentioning her and inviting slashdotting her, which is what seemed to be on the wind earlier.  Let's leave her be and let her go back to her work.  This is the furore of a moment, IMO.  Geogre 16:31, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete; not notable. Psychonaut 16:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wikipedia, merge, expand on this: the issue of Wikipedia accuracy deserves extensive discussion there. -- Jmabel 18:29, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Wikipedia, merge, expand on it --[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 21:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, so she's the one mentioned on the Village Pump who has been performing vandalism "experiments" to see how fast we can catch them, and then proudly reporting her adventures to Slashdot, smarmily noting that the Wikipedia is inaccurate. Pardon my french, but to hell with her.  Nobody forced her to use this resource.  My POV aside, we should give her a section in Slashdot under ==Slashdot and Wikipedia==, being sure to add Jimbo's reply to her on slashdot.  Perhaps we ought to start a new page under Slashdot and the Wikipedia and then begin listing these and similar events under it.  --Ardonik.talk 02:28, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * No, she isn't that one. Please let's not start confusing things and making things were than they already were. She is a reasonably well-informed librarian who knows a little about Wikipedia, but not quite enough. She said some thingsin the context of "be careful about what you read on the Internet." See this article. There's not even anything inaccurate about what she said. (It just needs a bit of NPOVing). Her main point was, in her own words, "Wikipedia is not what many casual Web surfers think it is." This was in response to a columnist who urged readers were urged to go to the Wikipedia Web site for information on computer history.
 * Stagnitta put an unpleasant spin on it, but didn't say anything incorrect: "It's not the online version of an established, well-researched traditional encyclopedia. Instead, Wikipedia is a do-it-yourself encyclopedia, without any credentials. As a high school librarian, part of my job is to help my students develop critical thinking skills," Stagnitta wrote. "One of these skills is to evaluate the authority of any information source. The Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. It even states this in their disclaimer on their Web site." When it was brought to her attention that traditional encyclopedias are also less authoritative than people think and have similar disclaimers, I believe I read that she acknowledged this and issue a sort of partial correction. What happened is that statement was widely disseminated and is spurring an ongoing discussion outside the Wikipedian community about the reliability of Wikipedia, which in turn has led several jerks to, metaphorically, litter our sidewalk to test whether it's true that people will eventually pick it up. One guy who dropped some test-litter right on our front walk found that it was picked up right away. Another guy who tossed some behind the bushes, reported it was still there a week later (and says he removed it himself). Neither of them was Stagnitta. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * P. S. True or false: when you go to Wikipedia for information, do you apply a) the same level, b) a different level of skepticism and critical thinking then when you go to the Britannica? If someone else cites a) the Britannica, or b) Wikipedia to prove a point, do you consider the level of authority to be equal, or unequal? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:10, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. My anger was misplaced and I wasn't being fair; my comment was stupid and I apologize for it.  To answer your second question, I haven't really used the Wikipedia as a research tool yet, having only got involved recently.  If I did, I'd stick to big, informative articles, and  would be a flag for me to check the history and see whose words were trustworthy.  Each article must, of course, be evaluated on its own merits, but my bias for authoritativeness is tilted toward Britannica's articles by default; their encyclopedia is free of stubs and kook-with-an-axe-to-grind contributors.  :-/  --Ardonik.talk 15:37, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable. Nothing worth merging or redirecting.  Her "findings" are already well answered in the very first Wikipedia article I ever read &mdash; Wikipedia:What our critics say about us.  Rossami 04:46, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ambi 10:11, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question: I see that "delete" is winning out over "Redirect to Wikipedia, merge, expand on this." Does this mean people think the material would be inappropriate in the Wikipedia article, or just that they don't think her name belongs in here as a ridirect? (For whatever it's worth, I still stand by "redirect and merge": I think if people are looking up her name it will be for this reason and I think the topic (not just her in particular, but the type of criticism she raises) needs to be engaged in the Wikipedia article. -- Jmabel 22:48, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Redirect to Press coverage. RickK 22:51, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to Press coverage. (Stagnitta doesn't seem to be listed there yet.) Wile E. Heresiarch 03:12, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) Revised vote below. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't like memorializing her. I'm being literal when I say that I think her actual name is beneath comment.  This is especially true since Siroxo has had e-mail with her, and she has been pretty apologetic.  She didn't write the article.  She just answered questions posed by a reporter who wanted to say a particular thing.  I hate seeing her name mentioned in a way that's going to anger Wikipedians. Geogre 03:30, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable. In answer to Jmabel's point, I don't think anyone will be looking up her name.  I have no objection to engaging the type of criticism she raises but she herself is not a notable person and doesn't raise the point in any unique way. JamesMLane 06:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreed w/ Geogre & JamesMLane. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:27, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)