Talk:Danah boyd/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

November 2008 project and deleted source

In a recent edit, I removed this source and the accompanying text describing it. I may be wrong but I am 99% sure the reporter got things very wrong. The article states that:

"A University of California, Berkeley, researcher and her team spent three years interviewing 800 youths and observed 5,000 hours of youth usage of new media. They reported Nov. 21 that pornography was rarely mentioned. Most kids concentrated on their friends, creative content, gaming or unique opportunities presented, researcher Danah Boyd said. In analyzing 10,000 random MySpace profiles, Boyd found few problems."

I'm pretty sure this actually refers to this, a project in which boyd was a collaborator. She did not lead the project; it was led by UC-Irvine Professor Mimi Ito Mizuko Ito but it did involve many people at UC Berkeley. It's a huge project and it's understandable that someone not immersed in the topics studied or the methodologies employed could get confused by some of the details.

Given the uncertainty of this situation, I think we need a better source if we're going to cite a November 2008 study led by boyd that had significant findings related to pornography. Ideally, we want a more reliable and substantive source than a few paragraphs in the popular press; a citation of a scholarly publication or presentation would be perfect. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no trouble adding new sources, but I still think it's a valid source for the "co-director" factoid. I am also extremely uncomfortable that you have been edit-warring to remove this mainstream citation (which uses the spelling of "Danah Boyd"), and replacing it with less mainstream sources which use the "danah boyd" spelling. And when I restored the citation, you reverted me just saying "bad source".[1] But no, it's not a bad source, it's a mainstream newspaper, The Oregonian, and perfectly legitimate to use. --Elonka 20:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no - you're absolutely right. I missed that it's a source for the co-director of the safety task force; I was only focused on the longer bit about the research study. I think there are much better sources for that piece of information but I'd be happy if this source were readded in the meantime. Sorry about that! --ElKevbo (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, source added back in. I also added a better source. And, no, it's not better because it uses "danah boyd." :) It's better, IMHO, because it's more direct and comes straight from the organization (the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University) that hosts the task force. I think it's such a better source that I think the other one should be removed but I am happy to compromise and leave it in as we hash out the naming convention. Heck, I wouldn't even cry if my new source were removed (but I would think it a very bad idea). --ElKevbo (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I allowed to violate WP:OR in a talk page? ;-) I know a fair amount about the study, and read through a preliminary draft of the entire report. danah was both the co-director of the study and also the lead author of several pieces of it. It was really a consortia research, integrated into one report. If someone insists, I could check the report and ID which pieces danah led on. BTW, Mimi Ito, the overall study director, has her own WP page as Mizuko Ito, and she's now at Univ of California Irvine, having moved from Southern Cal. I've taken it upon myself to edit ElKevbo's contribution earlier in this section to show Mimi's WP article and to reflect her UCIrvine appointment. Hope that is within colleagial norms. Bellagio99 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it should just say UC-Irvine since she conducted all of the work while at USC and it seems more intellectually honest to credit USC with supporting her throughout the project (although I have the sneaking suspicion that she might say otherwise...). Might be better to just omit the institutional reference altogether and leave the gory details to her own article. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And boyd's only listed as the fourth author (of many) on the white paper, if that is the document to which you're referring. I haven't seen anything that lists her as a co-director; Ito seemed to get all of the mainstream press when the paper was released. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sort out what I know. 1. Mimi Ito deserved to get the press, as she led the complex study. 2. I am not sure that danah boyd actually was co-director; sorry to mislead. I do know she was heavily involved. 3. Because, (a) she had the office next to Mimi; (b) she led the writing of a nice chunk -- I saw that in the draft I reviewed; (c) even though she was officially at Berkeley School of Info, she was physically at the Annenberg Center (RIP -- note NOT the Annenberg School) at SOuthern Cal. On another note, ElKev is right that the report was written at USC, altho the support I think was totally MacArthur. But if the desire is to give Mimi Ito's affiliation now, it is definitely Cal-Irvine.Bellagio99 (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No name calling please

FWIW, I didn't find Ubernostrum's name calling to be bullying. He had a well expressed point of view and defended it. I happen to agree with him, but that's (almost besides the point). I thought those who didn't want to move did not have good arguments on their side. But the main point IMHO is that Uber's writing was far from bullying. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed unverified statement

I removed a statement at the end of the article which said "Her controversial essay on the class divisions between users of Facebook and MySpace caused quite a stir." The source given was just a link to boyd's own webpage, and when I checked news and blog sources I could find no "stir" created by her comments, only one article in an Australian newspaper. Clockster (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this? This Google search seems to turn up quite a few hits, too. --ElKevbo (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it DID cause quite a stir on listservs, such as the AoIR list. But that is not really citable. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I got my lower case from the New York Times

New York Times finally spells name "danah boyd": all lower case. If you read the discussions, the hold-outs to using Dr. boyd's preferred lower case spelling had always pointed to the Times upper-casing of it. That no longer is the case. (and yes, it's a great pun, if I do say so myself). See Riva Richmond, "Does Social Networking Breed Social Division?" New York Times, July 9, 2009, http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/does-social-networking-breed-social-division/ Bellagio99 (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely spotted; shame it won't do any good, though. There'll be yet another long section here on the talk page, the same group of admins will turn up and make the same arguments, and eventually you'll get tired and wander off and they'll declare a "consensus" has been reached in their favor. My money is on "this is a blog and so doesn't count" and "this was obviously influenced by Ms. boyd and so isn't reliable" as the most-repeated arguments in the debate to come (currently offering reasonable odds, bets must be in before Elonka makes her first post).

Also, you might want to put the Manual of Style on your watchlist, since it'll probably get edited to add a workaround for this case. Meanwhile I'll make popcorn and wait for the fireworks to start. Ubernostrum (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And the winner is "this was obviously influenced by Ms. boyd". Please form an orderly queue at the window to collect your winnings. Ubernostrum (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I dare you to change the lead and move the article. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought about the "blog" argument. NYT says that blogs are integral part of their newspaper, and they stand behind them. It's just the stuff that doesn't fit in to print. (my second pun on this; didn't anyone appreciate the "case" pun?) The piece meets the objections, as it is subject to NYTimes editing and style guides. Time to move onto weightier subjects. Which reminds me, I'm being interviewed by NYT reporter today. I think I'll mention danah and insist on spelling it the lower case way as a condition of my participation ;-) Bellagio99 (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

♦ The basic claim seems to be that the NYT has changed its style. I think that's premature -- I'll accept that the NYT blogs ostensibly follow the same style guide, but I claim that they are not as rigorously edited. Thus, one blog's use is weak evidence that NYT has changed its style.

You're speaking with the NYT later today -- will you ask? Or someone else could; it doesn't seem to me too difficult to get an NYT editor on the phone who would know.

Also, I object to the manner in which you made your edits. You knew, based on your long-time participation on this talk page, that they would be controversial, but you made the change before posting here (01:47 July 10 and 01:51 July 10, respectively). I won't revert them now because I don't want to start an edit war, but please consider reverting them yourself and waiting a few days for the discussion to play out. --R27182818 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just happened on this page so I'm not familiar with this dispute, but if the subject wishes the article title to be uncapitalized, it fits with the MOS, and most sources use the uncapitalized form, then i think that title of the article should be uncapitalized. Captain panda 18:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The NYTimes corrected the capitalization, so I have reverted the edits on this pages... obviously done by Danah's friends RE: twitter. Jasonid (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jasonid. I would appreciate if you would supply the URL for the revised NYTimes article or other documentation of their change? Thanks. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The URL hasn't changed: http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/does-social-networking-breed-social-division/ Jasonid (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see it. And the change to Upper Case. I'd love to know how NYT got to make the change (or should we say "Revert"). SOme nasty put downs of her in the Talk section after that article. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Though I wouldn't call it a "Revert", as it was incorrect to begin with. Apparently either an editor or Riva agrees. I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.Jasonid (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why it's problematic to lowercase it in the article title; it seems that is the actual legal form of her name as well as the one she prefers and publishes under. bell hooks has it that way (I hadn't realized Wikipedia finally has the technical ability to lowercase the initial letter), though not K.D. Lang, E.E. Cummings (that article raises doubts about it being his preference, though), Catherine Yronwode. Conceivably there ought to be a Category for people who often/entirely employ lowercase for their names, although there are also lots of Wikipedians who dislike such kinds of categories, despite the value they add. Anyway, a slightly different issue: the article lead states "born danah michele mattas." As I understand it, the lowercasing came later in her life, she was not actually named with lowercase to begin with? Or was she? Шизомби (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The cited reference, written by the subject, states: "My birth name was "danah michele mattas" (spelled all funky because my mother loved typographical balance)." --ElKevbo (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to judge from that. She comments on the spelling, not the caps. Was the lowercase just her mother's intention, or what actually appeared on her birth certificate? Was it used in practice anywhere while she was growing up? Also, at [2], written by the subject, she gives her birth name as "Danah Michele Mattas." And while this is really neither here nor there, I think I get the "typographical balance" of "danah" but I'm lost when it comes to her full name. I emphatically do support using the lowercase for her current name, though. Шизомби (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A truce of sorts?

Hi, I'm not going to edit this article because I'm a friend of DMB's. Anyway, is there a truce that can be arrived at, of sorts? For example, since danah has cleared expressed her wishes to have her name lowercased (unless it would be uppercased like any other word (e.g., the beginning of a sentence)), can we agree that 1) she should insist in further press that they use lowercase and 2) once a significant (agreed-upon) amount of new press has come out with the lowercase version, the title and usage in this article can be changed? Unfortunately, danah might also here be a victim of inflexible style guides that require upercasing of names... so I'm not even sure if this is possible.

Anyway, I thought I'd attempt to propose something productive, so that you can all do more substantive editing. Joebeone (Talk) 12:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I think at this point the only way the article could be changed would be if it got WP:OFFICE'd. Which, sadly, would require danah to make a case for defamation or misrepresentation and aim some lawyers in the direction of the Wikimedia Foundation. Short of that, no dice: there's a clique of admins who are too strongly dedicated to preserving the article's usage as-is. Ubernostrum (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think WP:Office is warranted as this is not really defamation or libel. I am more optimistic than Uber. If a major mag. or newspaper comes around (NYT almost did), then there would be good grounds for making the change stick. As I've said before, I think danah is foolish in insisting on lower case (a minor PITA), but as she has done so for a long time and consistently, I will support her right to be lower case. Which is suprising, since everything else about danah is Upper Case;-) YMMV Bellagio99 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The argument will go as follows:

1: Big Mainstream Media Outlet switches to lowercase. 2: Someone argues that this is a justification for switching this article to lowercase. 3: One or more of our interlocutors will assert that this is clearly the result of pressure exerted by or on behalf of danah, and so has corrupted that source, making it unreliable for determining the usage. 4: Since all mainstream sources which use lowercase will be ruled out on these grounds, it will be asserted that the mainstream usage must not be lowercase. 5: Therefore the "consensus" will be that the lowercase usage is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

And then we'll all go round again. Like I said: it's OFFICE or nothing. Ubernostrum (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

♦ I think you mischaracterize the previous discussions. --R27182818 (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. So it is. Joebeone (Talk) 22:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

At the moment Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Mixed_or_non-capitalization states in relevant part "Some individuals do not want their personal names capitalized. In such cases, Wikipedia articles may use lower case variants of personal names if they have regular and established use in reliable third-party sources." This is entirely arbitrary, of course. And actually, it is odd in at least this instance to call the lowercase the "variant" when apparently the lowercase is the legal version of her name and the uppercase is the variant. Anyway, when she has had articles published, would those constitute third-party sources? She was at the mercy of the publication as to whether they used upper or lower; it was not self-published like her website. Whatever the case there, one could also look at other publications that have cited her (scholarly communication journals, etc.) rather than covered her (N.Y. Times), and see how they handled it; is there an easy way of doing such a search? Шизомби (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an easy way of doing that search, and I've done it and mentioned it (see history of this debate), and been told that those sources don't count. Ubernostrum (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If people really believe there's still a reason to try to have debate on this, here's a proposal: have an RFC. Simply state "here's what MoS says, here's what the subject says, here's the different types of sources and what they use, what should Wikipedia do?". And then everybody who's substantially participated in previous rounds of this discussion stays completely out of it (no votes, no comments, no arguments from anyone with an established position on either side). Then folks who haven't yet dug in their heels one way or another will be able to look at this from a fresh perspective, and maybe produce something useful. Anyone want to try it? Ubernostrum (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Could you do it, and I'll support it? I'm on the road for the next 2 weeks, and won't have much e-access for that time. Interestingly, I'm giving a talk at a conference in which I use this case as an example. However, I would rather it be resolved than used as a case.

♦ Well, the RfC route was tried before, just under a year ago (see above), but I certainly won't oppose another round. I do think, however, that it's unfair to ask previous participants to stay out of the discussion. --R27182818 (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested that because it feels that there's no real debate anymore among those of us who've done the previous rounds of this discussion; on both sides, people are dug in and endlessly repeating the same arguments with no effect on each other. So I thought that getting perspective from people who have no history in this discussion and can come at it with fresh eyes (and without being immediately mobbed by the folks who've been going round and round here) might be more useful than the same crowd of folks talking past each other until kingdom come. Ubernostrum (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Folks, I suggest a modified route: that someone put up on a relevant scholarly listserve a request for references to articles where Dr boyd is discussed/cited/referenced either as boyd or Boyd. That might address the requests for responsible 3rd party usage. Bellagio99 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get much interest from scholarly types here. -- Joebeone (Talk) 12:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

♦ Scholarly words are generally not independent; see above. --R27182818 (talk) 15:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya, I've been casually following the discussion, but haven't been participating since it seems to have simply been a rehash of what was said before. I do think that Joebeone's suggestion at the beginning of this thread seems reasonable though. If/when more mainstream sources adopt the lowercased spelling, then the Wikipedia article may be changed to match. Or does anyone have any other suggestions for a possible compromise here? --Elonka 23:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that people are working to have entire categories of sources declared off-limits in order to suit their purposes, it seems unlikely to me that the capitalization faction here would ever accept enough sources to justify a change in their minds. Which means your proposal is the same as "keep it the way I (Elonka) want it, permanently". Which is why I expressed the opinion above that short of lawyers provoking an office action, this article's unlikely ever to change. Ubernostrum (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The way "Elonka wants it", is for the title of the Wikipedia article to reflect common mainstream usage. If a clear majority of mainstream sources (New York Times, Newsweek, etc.) were consistently using the lowercased spelling of Boyd's name, I would have no objection to moving the Wikipedia article to a lowercased title. --Elonka 00:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Like Elonka, I haven't gotten involved because there doesn't seem to be much new. My personal view is that capitalization conventions are for readability, and that serving readers is our primary purpose. I respect Danah Boyd's right to her personal style, but I don't think we need adopt that style, any more than we would for somebody who insisted their name be rendered only in purple Comic Sans. The compromise I'd be most comfortable with is to wait until lower-cased names are common enough that Nielsen-style eye-tracking readability studies show that average readers aren't thrown by the violation of convention. Or, in other words, that we stick with the convention until it's no longer a convention. Hoping that helps, William Pietri (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Your opnion's fine so long as it's your opinion. But it doesn't match the guideline provided by MoS for this matter, and so probably is out of place here. Ubernostrum (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, she had her named legally changed to danah boyd and that is now what is on her birth certificate. It would not be possible to legally have one's name be in purple comic sans, so that is really a different case. Is a "common" (in some areas) incorrect rendering really preferable to the legal, correct one? Шизомби (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

♦ (As noted above,) it's not clear whether the law cares about the case of letters: Danah, danah, and DANAH may all be equivalent in the eyes of the law. IANAL. IMO the burden is on those who argue "it's her legal name!" to present evidence that in fact the law is case-sensitive, in order for that argument to be valid. --R27182818 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You want to see her birth certificate? Oh, no, a birther! :-D Actually not a bad point, it could be the case that there is (or is not) a law that mentions this, or a court ruling. Something to look for. Шизомби (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(OT): I've been keeping track of usage of danah's name via a Google alert on `"danah boyd" OR "Danah Boyd"` and it does seem largely upper case. It strikes me that this is a weird case where a person's desires about their name can be directly in conflict with many publications' manuals of style. Anyway, it would be neat (sort of) to have a listing of the ways her name appears in the press. This one ([3]) is interesting because they break a rule of sorts with dmb's name: they lowercase it *at the beginning of a sentence*. That's not right if danah's wish is for it to be treated like any old word. --Joebeone (Talk) 16:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Occupation?

So if she's employed by MSR New England as a researcher, shouldn't that be somewhere in the occupation listing in the InfoBox? —Joebeone (Talk) 12:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. --Elonka 16:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I wanted to tread lightly. --Joebeone (Talk) 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Name Issue

I know that I am coming into the discussion very late but I would like to point out that according to danah boyd she has legaly changed her name to be lower case. The following is a quote from her about her name changes.

what's in a name?

Born: 'Danah Michele Mattas'. My mother added the 'h' because she liked the balance of it - danah balances quite well. My mother remarried when i was young, so i added the name 'Beard' to the end of my name, making my childhood->college name 'Danah Michele Mattas Beard'. In high school, after my mother and stepfather divorced, i started the process of changing my name to my maternal grandfather's - 'Boyd'. I wanted his name because it represented my family, my culture, my heritage; i wanted his name out of respect.

Did you know that if you want to change your name and you aren't getting married, the authorities are not so thrilled? Anyhow, it took me many years, but in the summer of 2000, i finally had legal paperwork acknowledging my name as i saw fit: danah michele boyd

No, i did not forget to capitalize that, but i've quickly learned that most people don't appreciate my decision to leave the capitalization out of my name. There are a lot of reasons that i got rid of the capital letters in the final name change, some personal and some political. Block quote

Thought that this should be considered in the naming of the article and if we are trying to keep Wikipedia as legally correct as possible all of the places where her name is on this page should be changed to the lower case version. Thanks Burns28 (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right -- including coming to the discussion very late -- but while my sense is that most users (who care) agree with you, alas a few hardline admins don't, and we gave up edit warring. I think the change will come when a major newspaper, magazine decapitalizes. Bellagio99 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. However, Wikipedia article titles are not about what's "legally correct", they're instead based on "common usage", as defined by usage in mainstream sources. So President Clinton's article is titled "Bill Clinton" even though his full legal name is William Jefferson Clinton, etc. For more examples, see WP:COMMONNAME. --Elonka 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Thanks for the responses. I guess we will just have to wait till major news organization decide to respect how people wish to represent themselves over what is grammatically correct. And, it certainly seems that the admins do have the final say so not much hope in getting around them. Burns28 (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that news organizations probably won't matter much; the "consensus" position seems to be that any publication which changes loses its reliable-source status the moment it does so, since it must have somehow been biased/influenced by danah. Ubernostrum (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm and sniping are not helpful to this discussion. --Elonka 02:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a discussion still visible above which seems to attribute a New York Times lowercasing as "obviously done by Danah's friends RE: twitter". At the time I'd predicted something of that nature would be brought up, and did comment sarcastically in response, but I don't really see it as "sniping", more as the only comment that's really left for me to make.

There's also discussion still visible above where you seemed to be accusing me of engaging in an edit war (I've made exactly one edit to this article -- in June 2007 I added a BLP dispute template) and of "tag teaming". I can't help noticing that not long after Renesis showed up to pile on and call me a bully for responding to people's comments and pointing out a procedural issue (someone who had an apparent POV stake in this debate was working to push through edits to MoS in support of that POV, which -- I've noticed -- seem to correlate strongly with times at which MoS would indicate that this article should change). In other words, you seem to have a history of jumping the gun with the accusations; given that, I'd ask you to assume good faith and stay focused on the issues at hand. Ubernostrum (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For best results, let's please keep discussions focused on the article, not on who said what to whom. The article talkpage is to discuss the article content, not other contributors. --Elonka 13:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for going off topic here, but I had a chuckle at "hardline admins". By the way, Burns28 -- as an admin I'd like to say that being an admin doesn't (at least, shouldn't) give any user a "final say" more than any other. I happen to fall on the side of the argument that lowercase proper nouns hasn't been established as a "personal choice" by the style guide of any "reliable source" (which definition is now apparently another point of contention), including Wikipedia's own. Wikipedia's is, of course, determined by consensus, but if that consensus is to change, recognition and discussion of the change should happen at a site-wide level, not on this page. Frankly, I just stop by this page to see if that has indeed happened, not to defend any particular stance. -- Renesis (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

References

If anyone knows how to reuse footnotes/references, please let me know. I would also really like to build a "quotes" section, which was deleted. Help me out, I think this section could be very inciteful.Accosta2 (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The proper way to do this is to create a page at Wikiquote for her, and then we'd link to that page from here. --Elonka 12:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2009)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I request we move this article to danah boyd. Although "Danah Boyd" is used by some reliable sources and references, "danah boyd" is used by others and is clearly preferred by the subject. The Manual of Style clearly states that "If multiple styles have regular and established use in reliable sources, use the orthography preferred by the individual." --ElKevbo (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support the move, per ElKevbo's rationale regarding MOS. Additionally, arguments given elsewhere on this talk page to the effect that peer-reviewed academic publications and other reliable sources using "danah boyd" are somehow under Ms. boyd's influence and thus not reliable for this purpose (arguments which would theoretically resolve this the other way by excluding such sources) seem to overstep Wikipedia's bounds. It's not Wikipedia's job to try to investigate such sources for bias or personal motives (that's the job of other reliable sources, which could then be cited here if needed). Ubernostrum (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Clarification Since I've added a few comments to the discussion and a couple folks seem to be misunderstanding me, I'd like to clarify and explain my position a bit. I support the move of the article to "danah boyd" (and a switch to using "danah boyd" throughout the article text), based on the MOS as it was at the time the move was proposed; there are sources for "danah boyd" and there are sources for "Danah Boyd" (there are also reliable sources for a number of misspellings, but that's another matter and, curiously, no-one suggests moving to "Dana Boyd" or similar on such basis), and MOS stated that, when reliable sources conflict, Wikipedia should use the subject's preferred version, which is clearly and verifiably "danah boyd". I also support the move even if MOS is edited back to requiring a majority of reliable sources to be using the lower-case version; though a few mainstream press articles have used "Danah Boyd", a number of others (see various citations throughout the discussion) use "danah boyd", and "danah boyd" seems to be the universal or near-universal usage in academic publications where proper citation is taken to an extreme, and Ms. boyd is much more frequently published and cited in such publications than in mainstream press, which means that "danah boyd" almost certainly is the dominant usage in reliable sources (without even taking into account universities and employers which identify her as "danah boyd" rather than "Danah Boyd"). Ubernostrum (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Unwilling Support I disagree and don't think we should honor ridiculous requests by people to use odd capitalization, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Mixed or non-capitalization says we can re-name article names to use no capital letters if the person spells it that way (and she does according to her homepage). TJ Spyke 23:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It's come up several times in the history of this article that calling capitalization schemes "ridiculous" is perhaps a POV judgment Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to make (bolstered by the fact that some people strongly object to such schemes, while others seem to have no problem with them, something which seems a strong indicator that it's a subjective judgment and not a matter of objective fact or style). I'd like to keep the article free of such. Ubernostrum (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Support I think Ubernostrum put the case nicely, and I had put a similar case (without MOS) some months ago. I also request that Elonka reinsert all the discussion material that she archived, as I believe that much of it is about this case. BTW, I just tried to email ms boyd about something else today, and got a note that she's offline until Jan 19 -- moving to a new job at Microsoft Research in Boston or Cambridge.Bellagio99 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: The above editor may have a COI with the subject of this article.[4][5] --Elonka 22:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. The concept of a lower-cased spelling in an article title is a major stylistic choice, and should not be made lightly. It can be jarring to readers, and look like an error. We should only move a page to such a title if there is a clear preference for such usage in third-party reliable sources. As for the arguments about what the Manual of Style says, it is worth remembering that the Manual of Style is a set of guidelines, and not policies. The MoS is a recommendation only, and it is still our responsibility to choose what works best for a particular page. I was a participant in the discussions for the current wording of the MoS, and the consensus is that it's not just whether or not sources are using both spellings, but whether an unusual spelling is in "regular, established use". In the case of Danah Boyd, the majority of third-party sources are still using normal capitalization (Danah Boyd),[6] so Wikipedia should follow that usage. If at some point in the future, the majority of reliable sources use a lowercased spelling, then Wikipedia can adapt. But we're not there yet. --Elonka 23:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I looked through the history of the MOS changes, and noticed that originally there was stronger language about number of sources with a given usage; this wording was over time pared down, without apparent reversion or controversy, until it arrived at the present version. This would seem to reflect that the ultimate consensus evolved away from considering "X sources using upper vs. Y sources using lower" as a guideline (present language regarding the subject's own preference was added in this edit by Irn, who presumably did not do so without consensus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubernostrum (talk • contribs) 00:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I see no reason to presume any such thing. The discussion was at WT:MOSCAPS#Capitalisation, and three editors out of a dozen (Irn was one), supported that position; they outlasted the others, but did not persuade them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose also per MoS, specifically WP:MOSTM. Cf. K.D. Lang, another subject whose "preferences are ignored." — AjaxSmack 01:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Don't worry; we'll get to her next. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• By the way, I'm not quite clear what part of the MOS you're referring to and it would be helpful for me if you could be more specific. Thanks! --ElKevbo (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I'm confused. You oppose also per MOS, but no one else opposes per MOS (in fact, the only other oppose explicitly wants to go against the MOS).--Irn (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, my bust. I was specifically referring to WP:MOSTM. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• But her name is not a trademark, and there exists another section of the MOS that deals explicitly with this issue.--Irn (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think I've expressed it before, but I think this is fundamentally an issue of basic respect. This isn't a scientific theory, a product, or a corporation; this is a living person and I think it's damn disrespectful for us to ignore her clear and simple wish to use her name as she uses it hen it costs us absolutely nothing to do so. I'm glad that the MOS was changed to recognize this idea and am only half-joking when I said that k. d. lang is next. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's an issue of typography, not respect. Notice what the external citation links use [7][8][9][10]. Like Wikipedia, they have style manuals that eschew the use of cutesy typography. — AjaxSmack 03:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and we have a style manual that states we should go by the subject's wishes when there are sources using both versions (see MSNBC [11], Salon.com [12], Chicago Sun-Times [13], Washington Post [14], Toronto Star [15], PBS [16]). Further, this is a matter of accuracy, not "cutesy typography". Please don't be condescending to a subject's express and legal declaration of what her name actually is. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I personally don't care about official names but since it is being put forth as an argument here, is there any evidence that the capitalisation choice is a "legal name"? The subject notes a legal change but mentions "my decision to leave the capitalization out of my name" but not whether any legal authority concurs on the capitalisation per se. On the other point, I feel my attitude is dismissive rather than condescending but my arguments are based on numerous other name choices with "irregular" (Is that better?) typography in their "official" names described at WP:MOSTM. — AjaxSmack 04:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

♦ Respect goes both ways -- why is it OK for her to impose her nonstandard styling and the costs that come with it on the rest of us? --R27182818 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

She's not imposing this nonstandard styling - we are. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support This is why the MOS was changed. Additionally, as Ubernostrum pointed out, in the discussion leading up to the change at the MOS, the idea of looking to a majority of sources was proposed, but was ultimately not the language decided upon. "Regular, established use" was decided precisely because it does not require a majority. -- Irn (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • How about all of the sources except the subject's own website/output? [17][18][19][20] — AjaxSmack 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Further back in the discussion on this talk page, you'll notice I found, for example, a story in the Boston Globe not written by Ms. boyd, which nonetheless referred to her as "danah boyd"; academic citations of her (not work by her, but work citing her) seem to tend strongly toward "danah boyd" as well. So it's disingenuous to say that only work by her uses lower-case. Ubernostrum (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't say that. I said that all of the sources by which I meant the references used for this article (my bust for not making that clearer). I never claim to have made an exhaustive survey of every article, blog, or other mention of the subject. — AjaxSmack 00:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        • So would it be okay if we added the sources mentioned in this discussion to the article? I suspect that doing so would raise more accusations of bad faith and I hope you can understand that this - having many reliable sources but being unreasonably prevented from adding them - is an untenable position.
        • And what about the sources I recently added (not added, mind you, in any relation to this discussion but in response to editing that reminded me of recent work published by the subject that garnered national attention)? --ElKevbo (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
          • To my knowledge, the only person who's been removing sources lately, was you, ElKevbo. In terms of adding more sources or further expanding the article, I don't think anyone would have any objection. For best results though, stick with reliable third-party sources, rather than sources written by Boyd herself. A certain amount of self-published information is acceptable in biographies, but it's always better on Wikipedia to include information written by other people, independent of the subject. --Elonka 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support per WP:MOS, and all the reasons I've stated over the months: it is her legal name, it is her preferred spelling, WP should strive for accuracy (especially for BLP), and our presentation of facts shouldn't be dictated by the fact that some RS decide to spell it contrary to what is correct. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per the arguments that I've raised previously on this talk page. See above for elaborations on:
  • The mixed-case styling better serves readers:
    • Lower-case names are jarring when reading text.
    • Lower-case names have strange, unfamiliar rules at the beginning of a sentence.
  • It is impossible to write the name without making a value judgement.
  • It is unfair for Boyd (or anyone) to demand that others accept the burdens of the lower-case styling in service of personal identity.
  • Academic publications do not make independent style choices.
  • Legal documents containing a lowercase name do not give legal weight to the lowercase styling.
  • --R27182818 (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It seems that your objections are to WP:MOSCAPS and I think your arguments are better placed there. In the meantime, I don't think it's at all fair that editors should have to go through this lengthy exercise when there is clearly a consensus in the MOS which represents a far larger number of Wikipedia editors than those monitoring this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually most of MOS represents a small number of - deeply opinionated - editors who have agreed on its talkpage; it's worse on the subpages, of which MOSCAPS is one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) You are arguing for a change in policy; here, we're debating the application of existing policy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. MOSCAPS is being misquoted; it says may use. I see little evidence that sources which the subject did not write herself use lower case cinsistently, which is the line we normally take on such issues; compare E. E. Cummings [sic]. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment As I noted above, repeatedly, there are reliable sources using both. Questioning why a reliable source chooses one or the other, or injecting allegations of bias or influence into such discussion, is not Wikipedia's province; if you believe certain sources, which Wikipedia considers reliable (academic journals, anthologies and at least one major newspaper), have been unduly influenced by Ms. boyd, the proper course of action is to find other reliable sources which indicate this influence. As it stands, some reliable sources use lower-case and others use upper-case, and MOS clearly states that, in such a situation, the subject's preferred version should be used. Ubernostrum (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Here are some reliable sources independent of the subject using the lowercase presentation: MSNBC [21], Salon.com [22], Chicago Sun-Times [23], Washington Post [24], Toronto Star [25], PBS [26]. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • On the contrary, source criticism is exactly what we are here for. This is why we have editors, not bots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia reports only verifiable information from reliable sources, and while debating whether a particular source is reliable or not is within scope for a Wikipedia discussion, debating a source's reliability without reference to sources which question that reliability most likely is not. In other words, Wikipedia isn't a forum for investigating and determining why a peer-reviewed journal uses "danah boyd" and not "Danah Boyd"; that would constitute original research. Ubernostrum (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ubernostrum: Can you please square your initial comments above ("I see little evidence that sources which the subject did not write herself use lower case cinsistently") with the evidence presented by ZimZalaBim? I see no evidence that those articles - published in very high profile (one may even say notable and reliable) sources - were written by the subject of this article? --ElKevbo (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times and Financial Times have both run articles using "Danah Boyd" (the NYT article was widely syndicated), which is my basis for saying sources conflict. My response above was mainly saying that questioning whether a particular source used "danah boyd" because Ms. boyd told them to (or wrote a particular piece) is outside of Wikipedia's scope; a reliable source is a reliable source. Ubernostrum (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; it's not closely related to this discussion at all how much contact danah had with the authors of any of these pieces. I think we both agree that there are multiple reliable sources that use both forms of her name. The current MOS guideline (which keeps getting tweaked and changed, damnit) states that we should use the subject's preferred form when there are conflicting reliable sources. It seems that this is precisely just such a situation and the subject has expressly made her desires known. Working with the guideline as it currently exists and ignoring WP:IAR, I don't understand at all how you (or anyone else) can logically object to this move. This is as clear a black-and-white case as one is likely to ever see. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all black and white; borderline, much more so than bell hooks. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't understand your position. It would be helpful if you could address the points I raise above but if you want to leave it at "he just doesn't get it" ("he" meaning me) then I understand. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tempted though I am to go along with EK's suggestion, I will make one more attempt. The evidence seems to show that "bell hooks" is now almost standard; usage and her preference makes a clear case. This is borderline; "danah boyd" seems to be less common than the standard form, and to that extent astonishing. "e.e. cummings" is right out; it was not his usage, except where he used no caps, even in "I", and reliable sources are firmly against it; we quote some. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note I've dropped a note at WT:MOSCAPS about this requested move given (a) that it's a test of the new(ish) change to the MOS and (b) the tone and direction of this conversation seems to be more about acceptance of the MOS than the merits of this particular case. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I see reliable sources using lowercase ([27], [28]), and I see from her website that she prefers to use lowercase herself. Moving the article is the correct application of the guideline. More generally, this is the way that she chooses to identify herself, and since other reliable sources also identify her this way, it makes sense for WP to as well. Croctotheface (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's an incorrect application of the guideline. Because it can be so read, it is also the wrong guideline, as TJSpyke perceived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I really think you could stand to chill out here. Honestly, from what I recall of your record, your stridence over a minor page move discussion confuses me greatly. I have no idea why this the possibility of moving the article is SO offensive to you, but everyone would benefit if you simply allowed other editors the courtesy of holding a position different from your own. I don't see how others who arrive at and participate in this discussion benefit from reading your declaration that I am "incorrect," especially considering that there is at least disagreement about how to interpret the guideline. Croctotheface (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The guideline was never meant to impose a rule that we must use lc; that's why it said "may" to begin with. What offends me is not moving the page, which I would be prepared to do if given evidence (I support the use of bell hooks, because our readers will expect it); it is the abuse of MOS to rewrite the English language against editorial judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm pretty sure that the English language will survive until tomorrow no matter what our style guide says. More generally, your accusation of "abuse" is especially bizarre considering that near as I can tell, the move was proposed in good faith and the guideline was interpreted in good faith. If it turns out that your view of the guideline is the consensus view, that will come out with more discussion. There is no need to get so heated about it. Croctotheface (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out a couple times now in this discussion (and multiple times in previous discussions), the problem here is precisely that Wikipedia is going against the accepted usage. Academic publications list the author as "danah boyd". Citations refer to "danah boyd". Even major mainstream news outlets have apparently switched to "danah boyd" (see multiple references in this and other discussions). And so Wikipedia's insistence on "Danah Boyd" is the thing that's "jarring" or "surprising" to readers, who either come in knowing of the subject and are confused by Wikipedia's apparent incorrectness, or come in unfamiliar with the subject but, on following up references, discover that the accepted usage is "danah boyd" and then become confused by Wikipedia's apparent incorrectness. That is, I believe, why this article keeps generating such prolific debates and move requests. I invite you to peruse the mainstream sources which have been presented in this discussion, and to look over Ms. boyd's academic publication history, and then consider carefully whether you think they support the idea that "Danah Boyd" is the norm and "danah boyd" is unfamiliar and jarring. Ubernostrum (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some mainstream sources are using "danah boyd". Most mainstream sources are using "Danah Boyd": Google News, CNet, Discover magazine. Wikipedia should follow the prevailing usage in outside sources that are independent of the subject, and this means "Danah Boyd". If you disagree with this, talk to the outside sources and get them to change their usage. If they change to lowercase, then Wikipedia is more likely to change to reflect the usage in outside reliable sources. But for now, the article should stay at "Danah Boyd". --Elonka 18:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please define how you determined that "most" are using "Danah Boyd"? I'm curious as to your data sample, methodology, etc. Point being, it is nearly impossible for anyone on this page to make any kind of empirical statement that "more" use one spelling over another, and no argument should be based on this inherently subjective claim. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have not done an extensive case-sensitive Google search (I'm not even sure how to do one), but I periodically spotcheck Google News to see how current news sources are using her name. Today, a check at Google News shows Boyd's name being in five entries: Four are uppercase, one is lowercase.[29] When I did the search on all mentions in 2008, the ratio was over 3:1 for uppercase. Note that this is a straight numeric count, and is not factoring the kinds of sources. But it seems obvious that the prevalent usage, at least in third-party news sources, is for "Danah Boyd". --Elonka 21:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All that "seems obvious" to me is that you claim that 2008 articles that happened to be indexed by Google News use the uppercase. Even if verifiable, that doesn't mean "most" do. Again, the MOSCAPS policy that was in place since October (until this thread started and people went over there to try to change it) states, reasonably so, that when multiple versions appear in reliable sources, we should defer to what the subject prefers. You've found evidence that "some" reliable sources use uppercase, and I and others have posted evidence that other reliable sources use lowercase. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I "claim"? Feel free to count them for yourself. Google News is running about 80% at "Danah Boyd", and when I did a spotcheck of ten 2008 sources at NewsBank (I pulled off the top ten items on the list), it's 90% "Danah Boyd", including sources such as The Oregonian, The Guardian, The New York Times, The Sacramento Bee, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. If you want exact citations, let me know. Or, if you have some other metric by which "most" can be measured, I'll be happy to take a look at it. But the regular and established use is obviously "Danah Boyd". If mainstream sources were more or less equally split on whether to use uppercase or lowercase, then it might make sense to use Boyd's personal preference as the tiebreaker. But the clear preference in mainstream news sources right now is for "Danah Boyd", so no tie-breaker is needed. --Elonka 22:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I note you're being extremely selective in your choice of reliable sources. Google Scholar turns up nearly 400 results; some indexing software appears to force various capitalization schemes, but in all cases where I can click through to the actual paper the citation appears to be "danah boyd". And, tellingly, searching for "Danah Boyd" -- uppercase -- yields a suggestion that "d boyd" -- lowercase -- is the author I'm looking for. I welcome you to try to find 400+ "mainstream" sources using "Danah Boyd", and to weed out the duplicates, but it seems pretty clear to me that without extensive manipulation of which sources count there's no way to claim "Danah Boyd" is the predominant usage. Ubernostrum (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

And you're missing the point. Any attempt to quantify usage is necessarily incomplete (do you have access to every time her name is ever used in a reliable source??), and ultimately unnecessary, since the policy guideline doesn't require any such quanitification of what might be "the clear preference in mainstream news sources". This isn't a matter of who can find more sources to support their view, but rather, how to best follow policy when there are multiple reliable sources using both versions. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with that. The last go-round on this article, MOS had no way of coping with conflicting sources, and I suggested that a resolution be found for this article (and then, if necessary, kicked back up toward MOS for discussion). I got nowhere with it, and I suspect that, as a result of this discussion, MOS is going to end up edited in such a way that it will no longer handle conflicting sources, or will simply mandate that Wikipedia use the "majority" version. Since this has been obvious to me for a little while now, I've moved on to pointing out that even such a guideline still support "danah boyd". Ubernostrum (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Meta-Comment I'd like to point out two things. First, Pmanderson appears to be both participating in this discussion and simultaneously trying to edit MOS in ways which would bolster a particular position in this discussion. This strikes me as inappropriate (if I recall correctly, I once told it was inappropriate for me to merely be discussing possible changes over at MOS while also taking part in a discussion at this article), and I'd ask Pmanderson to refrain from such editing for the duration of this discussion (if a new consensus on MOS forms, some other helpful editor will almost certainly update its text to reflect that). Second, I can't help noticing several comments to the effect that lower-casing a name is "silly" or "ridiculous" or similar; discussion here should be neutral and respectful, and based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines and on information from reliable sources; if someone's personal POV on lower-case letters or the types of people who like them cannot be set aside for purposes of this discussion, I'd like to ask that person to recuse him- or herself from the discussion. Ubernostrum (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ubernostrum, it takes two to edit war, and it's pretty tacky to only list one participant (who, coincidentally, disagrees with your point of view), while not naming the other editors who are edit-warring, but happen to agree with you. This is standard Tag team behavior, where attacks are leveled on the "opposing" editors, while identical transgressions from your own "side" are ignored. For example, you're attacking people for using the word "silly", but ignoring the comment that accused people who opposed the move as showing no logic. Or in other words, please try to be more evenhanded in your criticisms here, rather than just attacking the people who disagree with you. As for anyone else who is making decisions here "per the Manual of Style", it does appear that the relevant section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) is in the middle of an edit war, involving multiple of the editors that are participating in this move discussion. So I would encourage all editors here to base their comments not on "what the MoS says" (since it's changing minute by minute), but simply on what you think is the best choice for this particular article. Thanks, --Elonka 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • From what I understand, it takes edits to to have an edit war, and I certainly won't touch the edit tab of this article with a ten-foot pole. I was, however (as I recall), called out for discussing MOS changes during a previous round on this article, and felt that the same rationale should apply here. As for tag-teaming... well, you, Cyrus and Renesis certainly taught me a thing or two about that a few months back, so perhaps we could expect even-handed treatment on that topic as well? And as regards the MOS war going on right now, personally I think it'd be rather sad if people are really that dedicated to the idea that they can dictate Ms. boyd's name to her out of a righteous sense of how English ought to be writ (since the war in question seems to have begun largely because this article would, under the MOS guideline at the time this discussion began, switch to lower-casing), but previous experiences don't give me high hopes, ya know? Ubernostrum (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • ♦ "Personally, I think it'd be rather sad if people are really that dedicated to the idea that Ms. Boyd can dictate that others accept the burdens of her funky styling out of a righteous sense of how personal identity trumps accessiblity to readers." -- I can't speak for the other opposers, but I do so out of a genuine sense that the mixed-case styling better serves readers, not "righteousness". --R27182818 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Let me point out that the only reason I ever got into this debate was that Ms. boyd's academic work is relevant to what I do for a living, and so I was familiar with her work and with the fact that, in such work (regardless of whether it's something she herself wrote or something else citing her work) she is basically universally named as "danah boyd", not as "Danah Boyd" (the only reliable sources upper-casing the name, so far as I know, are a couple of newspaper articles which doubtless imposed a similar theory of "helpfulness"; but, tellingly, even some newspapers are starting to use "danah boyd" these days, as I've occasionally pointed out in previous discussions). Seeing Wikipedia go against the grain of the accepted usage is -- to someone familiar with the topic -- quite jarring. Seeing Wikipedia do so deliberately on the grounds that it's more "helpful" to readers literally dumbfounds me; anyone who knows Ms. boyd's work will know her name is lower-cased and be surprised by this article's upper-case usage, and anyone who reads this article and then goes out and reads some of her work will discover that her name is lower-cased, at which point they'll be surprised by this article's upper-case usage. Thus the only possible result of leaving the article at "Danah Boyd" is an endless stream of surprised and confused readers wondering why Wikipedia takes such pride in deliberately getting the name wrong (as seen in the history of this talk page). How exactly is that helpful? Ubernostrum (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• Tentative support - if that's her legal name, go with it. One question that bothers me is that in the discussion of the pronoun "I" on the page of her website which discusses the name [30], she does use the capital when "I" is used at the start of the sentence. Question is, does the same apply to her name: is it specifically all in lowercase, or does it follow the rules of normal English words and get capitalised at the start of a sentence - if so the move should surely be to "Danah boyd". Icalanise (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• danah tells me that it is her legal name. And when she starts a sentence with it, she uses lower case. My position -- to her -- and to this interminable discussion has always been: (1) danah's change to lower case was silly; (2) more importantly, now she has done so and it has been around for a while -- and widely used -- and now that MOS is agreeable, I support the lower case usage in the title and throughout the article. I don't know what "consensus" is defined as in Wikipedia, but it must be something short of unanimity. I strongly believe we should close the discussion (as many of us have other things to do, perhaps even better things to do;-)), move to lower case, and get on with our lives. Otherwise, I'm going to take my knitting, move somewhere else, and come back in 6 months and find that the same arguments are being rehashed.Bellagio99 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Then go with "danah boyd". I mean, we don't insist on "normalising" anyone who spells their name "Thom" to become "Tom"... Icalanise (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's not about normalizing, it's about using the version of the name that is most commonly used in mainstream sources. If someone was legally named "Thomas Mahmad Sumari Fingledijitfragilistic", but newspapers tended to refer to him as "Tom F.", then we'd title the article "Tom F.", and include the long spelling of his name in the lead paragraph of the article. For more, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Examples. In the case of Boyd, the most common mainstream usage is "Danah Boyd", so that's how the article should be titled, though alternate spellings can and should be included in the lead paragraph of the article. --Elonka 19:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• "the most common mainstream usage is "Danah Boyd"" - that is far from an established fact. Yes, I know you've done some analysis on Google News, but I can also provide links to other mainstream sources that use lowercase. This isn't an issue solved by who can find more online sources with a certain presentation.... --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not just Google News, but also NewsBank via a normal library search, which was showing an even higher percentage using "Danah Boyd". It's not 100% of course, and I agree that some mainstream sources are occasionally using lowercase. But let's not give undue weight to a minority of cherry-picked sources, let's stick with prevalent usage. --Elonka 22:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• To be clear, I don't think citation counts is the way to resolve this, but it would be interesting to do a temporal comparison, to see if there is any trending one way or another (caps or not) over time. If counting sources is the solution, then a more robust statistical analysis would be necessary (which is why I don't think this is the solution, as we're editors, not statisticians). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose, for all the reasons cited by User:R27182818, and to add another voice in a (likely vain) attempt to balance the "loudest-voice-wins"-bullying being performed around here. Ubernostrum: Consensus is simply that, consensus. Your reasons have been presented. Now let the community contribute to the consensus on this topic, and don't attack every single opinion that doesn't agree with yours. You aren't coming up with anything new, you are just bullying at this point. -- Renesis (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Additional discussion

(response to "no consensus")

It was??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.149.238 (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• 100% Support This is clearly the chosen name of Ms. Boyd and so this article, by Wikipedia standards, should reflect that. Is it Beyonce or Beyoncé —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.149.238 (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• 100% Support I feel that those that objected to this clearly don't know enough about Wikipedia or, in this case, Ms. boyd, and are simply pushing their own personal preferences. Ms. boyd has an article on her site discussing why she goes by danah boyd and not Danah Boyd and she is credited in nearly all her published work as danah boyd, too. This isn't a matter for discussion. 82.23.149.238 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Promotional and POV

I have removed some non-encyclopedic content from the page and rewritten the rest to be less chatty and more informative. I understand, from the history of the page, that most of the content I erased came from the subject or the subject's friends. And, in any case, what I removed was nonnotable, nonencyclopedic, and sourced only by the subject's own blog posts. Furthermore, the detail in the article was grossly out of proportion to the subject's mild notability. The article previously came across as an informal version of the subject's resume, not an encyclopedia article. Childhood stories that the subject has decided are important do not on that basis alone need to be preserved in an article. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I should add: I reviewed the talk pages and the article's history before making my admittedly significant edits. I do not believe I disturbed any matters on which consensus had been reached. There was simply no reason for the filler that was in the article, other than it was what the subject chose to write about on her blog. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to some mild pruning, but the existing attempt to drastically slash half the article is a bit much. A better way to proceed would be to go more slowly. Perhaps focus on one section, make a change, then wait and see how it is received. See WP:BRD. --Elonka 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Antiselfpromotion, please heed the advice given above. And discuss your proposed edits first as they have been reverted multiple times by different editors. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you look carefully at the edits I made? They were not extensive. They were mild. They deleted material that was simply not notable, like description of an undergraduate thesis with no claims of notability. This subject has apparently engaged in extensive self-marketing on the web with an eye toward furthering her career, which is fine, but it is not a basis for including nonnotable information in an encyclopedic biography. In any case, I'm happy to discuss the edits here as you suggest. Which do you object to (in particular), and why? I would be interested in comments from people who do not in fact know the subject personally. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Offhand, I don't see the problem with mentioning her undergrad thesis as it establishes continuity in her academic career. I agree that we don't need to devote significant space to discussing it but not only do I not see a problem with mentioning but I don't understand the harm in doing so.

Given that several editors have objected to your proposed edits, how about either (a) taking them slow and making them one-at-a-time or (b) listing your proposed edits here so we can quickly see which ones are controversial and which ones can be made immediately? --ElKevbo (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable enough for a page?

Pretty much the only thing on this page is a biography that mentions lots of irrelevant facts like wanting to become an astronaut. It barely even makes it clear that she's accomplished anything. It just comes across as an unnecessary article. Verisimilarity (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Veri, Her accomplishments are real. In 5 seconds, I went to Harzing's Publish or Perish tool, and I found 51 papers, with 1700+ citations. I could do more by going to Scholar.Google. I am not danah, but because I am involved with a committee considering her for an award, I know that she has done a lot of policy work: testifying to Congress, MacArthur Foundation, etc. But that would be WP:OR on my account, and I don't have the time or inclination to document this. And frankly I don't see the need to. Your question hasn't been raised in years, despite much traffic about this page, and she's done lots more since then. Her existing page shows a lot, the citation count shows a lot, and if need be, the policy stuff could be brought in. It would be great if you'd like to -- I'll put you in touch with danah herself, and she can supply the documentation to you. Cheers, Bellagio99 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt very much that she truly satisfies WP:BIO's criteria for notability. She has an online following of people, including you, but she's basically a blogger and a nonnotable quasi-academic. This is a vanity page of the worst sort, as evidenced by its creation and history. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Take it to AfD if you feel strongly about it. But I strongly recommend doing some more research, perhaps starting with the references cited in this article. --ElKevbo (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I responded here to weigh in informally. I'm quite familiar with the AfD procedures. I'm concerned, however, that few people seem to be paying attention to the editing of this article except people who know the subject personally. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know her personally, but I'd have trouble assuming good faith on an AfD at this point -- the number of reliable sources treating her as someone noteworthy in the field (scholarly papers, NYT and other big papers calling her up for quotes when they run stories on social media issues, etc.) is kinda overwhelming. Ubernostrum (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: What editors, other than Bellagio, do you believe are personally acquainted with this subject? --ElKevbo (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To start with, Elonka as well: both the editors who reversed my last edit and on whom you relied in reversing my edit today. See the subject's own Talk page. The article is nothing more than a narrative personal resumé. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

♦ I follow it peripherally; never met her, read a few of her papers. I'm not tuned in enough to have a detailed opinion on what specific parts of the article are notable/non-notable, but I'd certainly oppose deletion. --R27182818 (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this a bit on my watchlist, and I too am a bit concerned that the article may be overly puffy. (As another example of possible conflicts of interest, the article was created by a user who has worked personally with Ms. Boyd.) She certainly seems noteworthy enough for an article, but the article needs to stick to the encyclopedic, not the puffy or frivolous. For example, it looks like she herself lamented on her blog because an anecdote about "fuzzy hats with ears" was removed; sorry, but that's a good example of what doesn't belong. And of course, the debate over her name's capitalization. (I note that she states on her website that her aesthetic preferences have a lot to do with her capitalization; I'd hope she'd respect that like many more traditional publishers, Wikipedia has its own aesthetic preferences as well, namely its manual of style?) The article right now seems too much like a résumé or an autobiography; e.g. do we really need to list every single television show she's been on or news outlet she's been quoted in, particularly in the lead like it is now? And is it really within our scope to note things like "her initial desire was to be an astronaut"? I think the article can be pared down in an agreeable fashion. Fran Rogers❇ 06:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This violates WP:OR, but I know for a certainty that Dr. boyd has been nominated for an achievement award by a major scholarly body. I am not on the committee and the award winner has not yet been announced, so I cannot say anything more. Bellagio99 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If it is a body such as the ACRL in her quasi-academic speciality, I doubt even that would make her notable on its own. If she is elected to a major academic group like the AAAS I agree that would make her notable, but given her mild scholarly accomplishments that cannot possibly be the sort of 'major scholarly body' you have in mind. Her work is not 'academic' or 'scholarly' in the usual way. (I do not mean that as a criticism.) Even so, I am not objecting to notability per se. I am positing that the page has content that is puffy, needlessly promotional, and far out of proportion to the little notability that the subject has. On the last AfD, people who did not know her in person treated it as a borderline case. Her career has involved preparing a few studies, presenting at a few conferences, and being a TV talking head a few times on a very narrow set of subjects. She is absolutely not more notable that the average academic. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have implemented some of your suggestions, Fran, with which I agree. The edits are not destructive but have been made faster than the glacial pace suggested by one or two others, some of which have conflicts of interest. The page is still too promotional and unduly emphasizes autobiographical material but it is incrementally better now. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the most recent edit, since it was too large of a deletion (approximately half of the article), and removed not only information, but also the reliable sources along with them.[31] The edit summary was also of concern, as it implied that the other editors here are expanding the article only out of some personal friendship with Boyd. Speaking for myself, I would not count myself as one of Boyd's friends, and neither do I have any conflict of interest where she is concerned. I met her once at a conference, very briefly, and we have had some conversations here on-wiki, but that's about the extent of it. On the other hand, I do have to admit to concerns as to whether or not the deletions by Antiselfpromotion (talk · contribs) are being undertaken in good faith. Looking at the contrib history, there seems to be excessive focus on just steadily whittling down the Danah Boyd article. See WP:SPA. Anti, perhaps you could spend some time working on other topics, than just Boyd's article? Or, perhaps you could spend time expanding the article, rather than just deleting information from it? --Elonka 21:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a gross mischaracterization. I have made hundreds of edits, only a few of which have been on this ridiculous vanity page. However, I shall step back and allow others to edit it. I wish to point out nonetheless that you are manifestly incorrect that 'removing sources' constitutes inappropriate editing. The information that I removed was promotional filler mostly sourced to the subject personally. The article was built in the first place by friends of the subject, as the logs and Talk history clearly show. There was nothing misleading about my edit summary. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The article may have been created by a friend back in 2005, but it has been extensively rewritten and overhauled since then. Looking through the history, here's an example of an overhaul that I gave to the article in 2006.[32] To say that the article has been primarily expanded by friends of Ms. Boyd, is not an accurate statement. --Elonka 00:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I neither know nor care who created this page, but have trouble discerning the notability of the biographee. And the talk in the article about her sex preferences and how she chooses to write her name make the result look more desperate: if an article has to resort to this fluff, what substance can there be? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read through the AfD discussion linked up at the top of this talk page for background before taking further action. Ubernostrum (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. It's one of the least convincing "keep" AfDs that I remember reading, with IPs and new users expressing enthusiasm rather than presenting reasons. I've no particular urge to take "further action"; I'm willing to believe that she is notable but see very little evidence of this and urge people who do believe it to improve the article accordingly. ¶ When I think of writers about the net I think of such people as Philip Greenspun, Jonathan Zittrain, and Sherry Turkle. (This isn't a matter of admiration: I find the writing of two of these three soporific.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the consensus from the AfD was to keep. Thus, it would be up to you to convincingly argue for the opposite position at this point. Absent a convincing argument that the subject does not meet the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (and criticism of the article content isn't quite the same thing -- bad articles can be written about good subjects, and the solution is to turn them into good articles), I'd argue that the existing result should stand. Ubernostrum (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If we are not to delete the article, I propose that we keep the notability tag on it and seek to excise the vanity and promotional content from it. It would be better as a stub than it is now, and it can be expanded from that stage with encyclopedic content, if there is any. I have tried to do this myself, but it has been reversed by editors who have interacted with the subject or who know her personally. Detailed discussions of minor academic articles, her sexual preferences, and her modification to the capitalization of her name all give undue weight to those matters. So far as I can tell, the subject has done nothing of note other than to give a few speeches and to gain minor and brief press coverage for claiming that the users of Myspace and Facebook differed on average by race and social class. That record does not meet the general academic notability guidelines. The page, once again, was created by one of the subject's personal friends. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

She has one article in press: “Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.” It's here (PDF) on her website. It's pretty long. It disarmingly says that "My primary goal is simply to unveil some of the common ways in which teenagers now experience social life online." And it all seems very humdrum. Now, there's nothing necessarily wrong about the humdrum: such people as Joe Moran have written perceptively and fascinatingly about it and have had their achievements recognized. I don't see this here. Of course, my own perceptions and tastes mean squat; what's important is what note other experts in the field have made of her work. There's no indication of such note in the article, so my own reactions are all I have to go on. (How about your own?) ¶ I also vaguely infer from "Shirky, Clay (February 28, 2008). Here Comes Everybody. Penguin Group. pp. 224–5. ISBN 978-1-59420-153-0." that she has a two-page article in print. ¶ Her notability seems to be that of an academic. Here's the guideline for notability among academics. It lists nine criteria, any one of which should normally be met. Which one does she meet; or, if she meets none of them, how else is she notable? ¶ In this edit, User:ElKevbo reverts my addition of "notability" flag with the edit summary nonsense; have you read the cited references or the discussion in Talk? No, ElKevbo, I have not read the cited references. However, I have looked at the descriptions thereof that appear in this article, and they whelm me. Which one should impress me? And I certainly haven't read all of the discussion here but I've read enough to make me wonder why it is that people who are keen to say that her work is recognized by her fellow-academics fail to revise the article to accommodate this. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You have no business editing this article if you believe that boyd only has one article in press. I'm not being mean, I'm not being snippy - I'm serious. You really need to learn about the subject of an article before you toss around accusations and assertions that are demonstrably false. Her full list of publications is here; please read before you ignorantly downplay the work of this scholar further. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

ElKevbo, I tentatively infer that you have learned about the biographee. So go ahead, have the article reveal your learning. After all, the article is not semiprotected, let alone protected. If you see reliably sourced material about the recognition by her fellow academics of the theoretical insights, etc, of the biographee -- as opposed to (or, if you must, in addition to) mere fluff about her capitalization preferences, youthful dreams, etc -- then you're entirely free to add it. But as it stands (and perhaps very unfairly), the article does not show her notability. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Folks, You might consider thinking about Dr boyd as a public intellectual. As such, she has testified multiple times before Congressional committees, and she has keynoted a number of major conferences. And from what I've read, she goes way beyond recycling old speeches and gives major innovative analyses. Plus, as ElK says, there's more than one article, and in addition, there is the co-editing of a book-like special issue a year or two ago for the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication. She's also been nominated for a major award as a public intellectual by the Communication and Information Technologies section of the American Sociological Association. Peace. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you know her personally and like her, but that does not establish notability for an academic or public intellectual, and some of what you write distorts the truth. I have not seen evidence that she has testified, for example, before congressional committees. She may have spoken to a subcommittee, but all I have seen is that she wrote letters ('written testimony') to some of them. This is typical for an academic, as would be occasional spoken testimony to a subcommittee in a narrow field of expertise. Many academics are asked to edit journal issues or provide peer review for journals, and the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication is a minor journal with limited impact. Getting an annual award from a section of a professional academic organization is also commonplace, and those are not the type of major academic awards to which the notability guidelines refer. That you think she is a promising young academic--a belief that may or may not even be corroborated among other sociologists--does not establish notability, nor does skill at self promotion. At the least, we should remove the fluff from the article and avoid giving undue weight to trivia and personal links that the subject likes, but you and two others have reversed my edits when I have tried to make that change. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

My former PhD supervisor has ticked more public policy and academic achievement boxes than Danah Boyd, but he (rightly) doesn't qualify for an article under WP:BIO. I suspect that because Boyd's research is on a related topic she seems a lot more visible to the kind of people who frequent Wikipedia. That kind of institutional bias is exactly the sort of thing that policies like WP:BIO are meant to avoid. Orpheus (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to throw in my 2 cents, I hear her referenced quite frequently in academic discussions on the subject of youth social network service use. She has a fair amount of name recognition, and may be the best known researcher in this area. My gut feeling is that she is notable enough to deserve this page.DarwinPeacock (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S., take a look at Google News [33]: she is repeatedly cited in major news media (New York Times, The Guardian, etc) as an expert on Facebook, online privacy, etc. This satisfies Criterion 7 of WP:PROF. See Note 14: the criterion is satisfied if "the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark."DarwinPeacock (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Such quotations are recent and narrow overall. It is important to keep in mind the intent of the criterion itself, which is to include those who have had a substantial impact outside academia. A few quotes in the Times and Guardian, and somewhat more quotes on blogs, are not sufficient, particularly on ephemeral or trendy topics. Few outside her speciality would say Boyd has had a substantial general impact, or at least the citations do not so establish. In any event, my concern is not only notability but also WP:AUTO, WP:COI and WP:ADV. I am not challenging only the existence of the article but also its content, style and emphasis. Others in forums that discuss Wikipedia have used this article as an example of what is embarrassing about our editing practices. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The news mentions make it look to me like she got approached by major news sources to comment on a number of different social media news events. These aren't just quotes about her recent publications: it looks like she was actually sought out as an expert (and being an expert counts as having a substantial impact--that's exactly what note 14 is trying to say). Social media may be a trendy topic, but I don't think it's an ephemeral one--otherwise, we should really go short on some Facebook stock ;) I have no opinion on the other issues--they may detract from the quality of the article, but they don't detract from her notability. DarwinPeacock (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

First off, I don't see how this is an autobiographical article; the subject is known to edit Wikipedia, yes, but doesn't edit this article. I also don't see conflict-of-interest issues; yes, some people who know the subject have contributed to the article, but so have other people; "someone who knows her edited this" is grounds for having someone neutral take a look and deal with anything that's unsourced or unreliable, not for deletion. Similarly, I don't see how you could make a case that this is an advertisement. And if someone's criticizing Wikipedia on some other forum, feel free to go argue with them on that forum; there's no policy saying Wikipedia should delete anything somebody makes fun of.

In other words: I get that you want this article gone, but you're going to need sound policy-based arguments to back that up, and right now you don't really have them. Ubernostrum (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not committed to seeking deletion for the page. I have proposed many AfDs and have refrained from doing so here. But much of this article's content is embarrassing. To start with a modest suggestion, what say we remove everything that's sourced only to personal musings of the subject in her own blog on the assumption that these facts are not noteworthy and are receiving undue weight? I do not argue for that as a widely applicable principle to other articles and do not dispute that it can be useful occasionally to cite the subject for significant facts, but it would be a suitable response here to the vanity history of this article. To make my suggestion concrete, I would remove the second paragraph under 'Biography' and rewrite the first--possibly as a new section entitled 'Name'--to be factual rather than personal. I would then refrain from detailed descriptions of each minor published work of hers that she or her friends have decided is significant. The third paragraph currently under 'Biography' is suitable. The fourth should be trimmed, and several of the 'External links' should be removed, for they appear to have been added solely to promote the subject's career and from an encyclopedic perspective are redundant and of limited value. These fairly minor suggestions would improve Wikipedia and prevent a pernicious kind of self-promotion. Given my own harsh views about the subject's self-promotion, to avoid bias I will refrain from discussing notability or more radical changes to the article for now and will leave that to others. In general I am in agreement with Orpheus and think that, in addition to self-promotion, this article reflects a regrettable institutional bias. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good suggestion for me. Just a clarification about the "institutional bias" - I don't think it's regrettable, as every person and group of people have a collection of biases. What is regrettable is not acknowledging those biases and setting policies and guidelines to avoid them as much as possible. See WP:WORLDVIEW for an essay on the subject, but a good example is "Because you need the Internet to edit Wikipedia, Wikipedia will give undue weight to the Internet". Again, that's not necessarily a problem or even a bad thing, but it is something to watch for. Orpheus (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I also agree: remove anything referenced to her own sites/blog (primary sources) and clean it up. Even if it she's borderline notability (is what I'm thinking for now even though I havent studied it in more detail), it should never be inflated with personal references because otherwise the reader would think that any Tom Dick and Harry can get a page here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 15:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not every Thomasina, Ricky or Harriet publishes papers or is invited to work for Microsoft. While I worry about evidence of notability I do also see signs of notability -- and I'm unexcited by "thin end of the wedge" arguments. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor am I. However, working for Microsoft and publishing papers are very clearly insufficient for notability under our policies. I see signs of it too, but am not persuaded. At best it is a borderline case. Regardless, at a minimum we should follow through on the editing suggestions that appear to be gathering consensus here. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to reply saying she's not notable enough. Here's what I think. You need multiple reliable sources to be talking about her. One is the discover magazine interview and perhaps there are others. I'd say borderline notability but I havent looked more carefully. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The Notability tag should be removed. The article has already gone through an AfD (in 2006), and passed, so the tag is not appropriate. --Elonka 17:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue against its removal, but I do continue to wonder about the contrast between (a) the certainty expressed by various people in this talk page that the biographee is noteworthy, and (b) the sparseness of what's in the article. How about beefing up the article a little? -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the tag. As for the article's length, it looks like about a third of it has been stripped out over the last few months, primarily by one editor. I would have no objection to restoring the article to its original size, for example as it was seen here.[34] --Elonka 00:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, the most obvious problem with that version is its description of what I vaguely infer to be the pinnacle of her work thus far:

She is also involved with a very large three-year collaborative ethnographic project funded by the MacArthur Foundation and led by Mimi Ito; the project examined youths' use of technologies through interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis.[15][16] Her research culminated in an article in the "MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning, Identity Volume" called Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites:The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life.[17] This article analyzes many of the issues that youth are facing today in the online networked publics that have become a major part of their lives. The article primarily focuses on social networks as implications for youth identity. It also deals with parent relationship's with their children in regards to these social network sites. Her research on this article was roughly two years.

Whether the work was a matter of three or of two years, there's nothing wrong with its main fruition as an article. However, if it had instead been a book, then I'd say its mere publication as a book by a sound academic publisher -- a university press, Wiley, Erlbaum or whatever -- would (to my mind at least, if not against some WP guideline) indicate significance. But it isn't a book and instead is an article. So what's the significance of the article? I don't deny that it is significant; I just don't know. Neither that version of the article nor the current one tells the reader. People have said above that her writing is highly valued by her academic peers; if this article "Why youth [loves] social network sites" is widely acknowledged to be perceptive, to cut through conceptual confusion, to debunk misperceptions or orthodoxy, or to start a new line of investigation (to be "seminal"), then let's see some (sourced) sign of this in the article. -- Hoary (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had it assigned to me in two different classes - I'd guess it might be widely cited enough that my professors knew of it, but I don't know how to find out widely cited something is. The citation for it on Wikipedia is off a bit with its "in press" notation (an earlier version?). The article can be seen online here http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119 where it is given as boyd, danah. “Why Youth [heart] Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life." Youth, Identity, and Digital Media. Edited by David Buckingham. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2008. 119–142. doi: 10.1162/dmal.9780262524834.119. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What is currently in the article is indeed a (outdated) mischaracterization. That specific talk was expanded into a book chapter, as mentioned above. Moreoever, to state that either the talk or the book chapter was the "culmination" of her work seems woefully incorrect. That and similar work led to her doctoral dissertation, her role as the lead author in another book chapter, and many other activities. This was not a one-off project but a cohesive part of her research agenda. ElKevbo (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Perhaps you could rewrite this part of the article accordingly (and of course sourcedly). -- Hoary (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Hoary. Go ahead and be bold and make appropriate changes? --Elonka 11:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was a book. It's called "Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out" (published by MIT Press, first author: Mizuko Ito). And it maps out the collective work we did over the span of the Digital Media and Learning project. My dissertation "Taken out of Context" also came out of this and I'm currently turning that into a book for Yale University Press. Zephoria (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

None of that, as it happens, would suffice under the notability guidelines for an academic. Most academics publish their dissertations. I agree that if the page is kept, that information should be added. Your recent posting on Twitter about your own Wikipedia entry will likely do more harm than good to the article, however. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(I must add, however, that this prediction of mine appears to have been incorrect so far, due to the excellent edits by MaxVeers.) Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Most doctoral dissertations aren't published, unless you include on-demand publication by UMI etc. (Occasionally in a university library you'll encounter a clutch of twenty or more dissertations from UMI, and looking at them you realize that there's a very good reason why most remain [otherwise] unpublished: the majority are pedestrian, and of course many are mere assemblages of PoMo piffle etc.) A lot are published on the web by their authors. Quite a lot are published by vanity academic presses. A small number are published more or less as is by reputable academic publishers. And a sizable minority are reworked into books from such publishers. (The last is the fate of the PhD thesis of my own supervisor. He went on to publish nine more books I can think of offhand -- all Cambridge University Press or Blackwell -- but there's no article about him in en:WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I stand corrected. I just want to add that I do find this kind of comparison helpful. To add an example to those I listed in an earlier remark, about half the people profiled as 'leaders among women in technology' in the short Fast Company article that is now mentioned in the entry's introduction do not, themselves, have Wikipedia pages and do not appear to meet the notability guidelines. This is the type of thing I mean when I call this case a borderline case of notability. It is not an insult to the subject (except to the extent you find self-promotion distasteful). Antiselfpromotion (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't think that I was notable if I read this entry and I generally agree that its fluffiness makes me look silly at best. If I were to edit this article, I would add the work that I did with the Internet Safety Technical Task Force with John Palfrey and Dena Sacco (and its impact on the online safety discourse in the press, in policy, and with companies); I might also talk about the MacArthur-funded followup on Youth and Media Policy. I would add the work that I did with on the Knight Commission on Information Needs in a Local Democracy co-chaired by Marisa Mayer and Ted Olson (and its impact on policy decisions from broadband to CPB). I would refer to the fact that I keynoted SXSW this year to an audience of 8000 and my talk's impact on discussions of privacy. I might also talk about all of the other high-impact keynotes that I've done in recent years rather than tangential talks from years ago. I would reference the press profiles that have been written about me in the NYTimes, Fast Company, Financial Times, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. instead of the tangential references in old news stories. (Although, for the argument happening here, I get 10-50 requests for comment from the press per week depending on what's happening in the news and I respond to maybe 20% of them.) I might even mention that Fast Company listed me among the most influential women in technology or that the Financial Times called me "the high priestess of internet friendship" (even though this makes me cringe). So as to make all of my biases known, I'd probably mention that I worked for Macromedia, Intel, Tribe.net, Google, and Yahoo. And that I'm on the LiveJournal advisory board and the New Media Consortium board of directors and that I have a fellowship at the Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society. (And, for the record, I worked full-time for V-Day from 2007-2009 after volunteering part-time since 2004.) I think that the academic work that I do is interesting and important but it alone doesn't make me any more notable than your average academic. What I would argue makes me notable (and probably controversial) is the way that I blend academia, industry, and the public. I've become a public intellectual by communicating grounded academic scholarship to a much broader audience through many channels: blogging, public speaking, sitting on commissions and task forces, working for companies, and speaking to the press regularly. It's the combination of what I do that makes people interested in who I am. But of course, this is a Wikipedia entry about me so I don't really get to have a say, but I don't think that what is currently here communicates why I'm notable and so I totally see why this argument keeps happening. Zephoria (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It is manifest that you have a high opinion of yourself, and that opinion may be, in the context in which you work, at least somewhat deserved. To make my own opinion clear, however, I am not convinced that even if everything you say above were sourced (I have no doubt it is true), it would make you notable under our guidelines; at best the notability would be marginal. Being profiled (I have read the profiles), particularly on trendy subjects, is not sufficient. Serving with dozens of other people on boards and commissions is not sufficient; would you claim that everyone who served with you on the Knight Commission (which is itself probably not notable under our guidelines) needs a Wikipedia entry, or only those who very much want one and who talk about themselves and their work a lot? Your autobiography above establishes you as a promising young academic, or 'public intellectual' if you would prefer. It is not atypical for young academics! It is, indeed, quite ordinary. That promise, or having a following on Twitter among social-media devoteés and at specialised conferences, does not establish notability. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We know what your opinion is and your comments are at or just over the line. You're not adding anything new to the discussion and some of your statements appear intended solely to demean the subject. (Incidentally, your comments continue to reinforce that you are completely out of your element in this discussion and lack the right background to make substantive contributions on this and related topics.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I added a bunch of notable accomplishments and references that ought to finally put this discussion to rest. (Boyd also won CITASA's 2010 Public Sociology award, which by itself makes her notable, but the announcement isn't official yet.) The whole process took me an hour or two, as it would have taken anyone else. I wish the countless hours that have gone into debating the notability of this page had instead gone into contributing to its content. MaxVeers (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You veered toward the promotional in your later edits, but on balance they are a clear improvement. Thank you. ElKevbo, my goal is not to demean, just to accurately describe. Not being an expert on social networking does not make me unqualified to discuss notability. It is not an insult to call the subject ordinary! Consider, if you will, that there was certainly some young academic who discussed televisions to the press during the rise of the television. It is questionable whether such a person would have been encyclopedically notable or would warrant an article on Wikipedia today, regardless of how often she talked to the press or whether a few passing profiles were written or vague praise given by journalists. MaxVeers, your edits are very good. I dispute, however, that an award from a section of the ASA makes one notable. Look at the past recipients of the award, or a similar type of yearly award by an departmental association like the ACM, and decide for yourself. It is manifestly not the kind of 'major scholarly award' to which our guidelines for academic notability refer; the guidelines are clear on that point. In general, comparison is a good strategy in evaluating claims of notability: the other 'associate fellows' at Tilberg do not (and probably should not) have Wikipedia articles about them, many other speakers at media conferences do not, the other members of the various committees on which the subject has worked have not. The major difference between those people and the subject is apparently that the subject seems to want others to hear her name more often. I am still a little concerned about undetected or systemic bias because the subject appears to have personally caused your edits to occur by posting here and on Twitter about her own article. I would be more comfortable if others who were not already experts about or aficionados of social networking had their say about the article; I am certain, at a minimum, that such people without a specialist's perspective would not so readily question my good faith or motivations in commenting on this article merely because I question notability in a borderline case. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)