Category talk:Articles with connected contributors

Whom to include

I have some unease about some names that have been included in this category. There are a couple aspects here:

I feel uncomfortable with having editors who have only edited anonymously (i.e. by an IP address) listed here (or rather, the articles they may have edited). IP addresses are changeable: some ISPs use dynamic IP addresses; even those that assign fixed ISPs don't necessarily (or ever) have lifetime contracts to lease a specific IP address. So even if Famous Person Jones really did edit with the IP address 172.16.54.21 at some point, there's no particular reason to suppose they have access to that address in general. And pertinently, there's no reason to think that some new editor won't have it (and not wish, presumably, to be described as being the same person described in an article).
I'm also a bit unhappy about the standard of evidence used for some of these assignments. In many cases, an editors—but especially an anon editor—is said to be the same person as an article subject purely on the basis of having edited that WP article in a way that makes it plausible that the edit is autobiography. For example Sophia Lamar was assigned to this category recently, as an anonymous IP user. There was no comment provided on the talk page for why the category membership was added. However, looking through the edit history, there were some comments by that anon in the article, along the lines of "Sophia Lamar want the article to be this way!" Quite likely the subject was getting carried away with autobiography, and editing poorly... but I don't know for sure: maybe it was a friend of hers; maybe it was a vandal wanting to discredit her; maybe it was a stranger who was merely presumptuous. But absent a specific comment on a user page (or on some other citable source), I don't think we should just assume the personal identity.
Additionally, I think "Notable Wikipedian" ought to mean that an editor is moderately notable on Wikipedia as well as meriting an article for their outside noteriety. Someone who made a very small number of edits ever, or who edited only the autobiography page, is kind of uninteresting to put in this category. The category text doesn't quite say that now, but I think it should. It's the folks whom you might actually have known as WP editors who are notable in the outside world that have a point for inclusion. I'm not aiming here for the "top 50 contributors" or anything as extensive as that: just maybe someone who has at least edited a dozen articles during their WP career. I.e. they have a meaningful "Wikipedia presence".

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. If new editors do no wish to be associated with someone who used their IP previously, they can register a name.

2. We have little proof of any of these. The users peronal admission should be sufficient, unelss there is a reason to doubt them.

3. I don't think it is a good title either. It should be "Category: Wikipedians with article", to match the list. However, that said, anyone with an article in Wikipedia is notable. Otherwise, the article should be deleted.

-Willmcw 10:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My third issue is different from what Willmcw responds to. I mean that we ought only to list Wikipedians with more than a trivial edit history in this category. For example, if I demonstrate Wikipedia editing to a famous person by walking them through two article edits; and that person never returns as editor thereafter, it's just a silly technicality to call them a "Notable Wikipedian". They may well be extremely notable; but they are only a Wikipedian in the most trivial of senses (and not interesting to include in the category... unless they come back later and actually engage in WP editing, of course). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Ebert and friends

The best example of a trivial Wikipedian on this list is Roger Ebert. He made about three edits. (And contributed an image). OTOH, he's also one of the more prominent people who has acknowledged editing here, and perhaps one of the reasons the list was started. Why do we need to draw the circle so tightly? What's the harm in drawing it broadly? -Willmcw 20:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ebert stood out in my mind when I saw his name. In fact, he made 14 edits to ten different pages (several were images, but images are important for WP too). That's a hair under the dozen I mention above, but it's not just one edit, or to just one article. The fact that Ebert is highly notable outside WP weighs a bit in his favor for category inclusion.

Contrast this with Sophia Lamar whom I mention above: even if she had edited under a username, her outside notability is only nominal (I'd personally vote keep on an AfD; but not strong keep). I don't want a rigid formula like "if edits > N and notability > Z then add category"... but a little common sense balancing is reasonable. Someone who is just an "autobiography warrior" is a demerit for cat inclusion. Someone who is highly notable in the outside world is a merit for cat inclusion. Someone who lacks a username and only uses an IP address is a very strong demerit for cat inclusion (but maybe that could be outweighed if someone was highly notable and did many edits under that IP address).

Or compare also with me (David Mertz) or Danny Yee. Both of us are moderately notable (somewhere between Lamar and Ebert :-)), but we've both been quite active as named users on WP (hundreds of pages, thousands of edits) Those seems like really good category membership candidates. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notability aside, this category helps other editors be aware of autobiography. Even if Sophia Lamar is not particularly notable, if I were editing her article I'd want to know if she was also participating. Many "Wikipedians with article" do not pick usernames based on their real names (no reason they should), which makes it unclear when they are engaging in autobiography. -Willmcw 22:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]