Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

chemconnector.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

#11

Post by fatjokes »

darth_static wrote: post #6
scarmig wrote: post #5

Because there are probably fewer brand name pornstars out there than people who hold a professorship of some kind?

Did you even read the article? Have a look at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_actresses_... and try telling me with a straight face that all those actresses have a greater right to a Wikipedia page than the professors that the author mentions.

I have no knowledge of the actresses' area of expertise, yet I can fully enjoy their work. But without at least a MS (maybe a BS in some cases), I doubt I can fully appreciate the work of the professors.

Personally, I believe the work of the scientists of course deserve more recognition. But if you were going to go down that road, I'd start with trimming the wiki entries of pro-athletes or generic Hollywood celebrities. Their lives and contributions affect me even less than pornstars.

Re: Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

#14

Post by andrewfelix »

mhartl wrote: post #8
andrewfelix wrote: post #7

I find it perplexing that someone with a science background could have said this: "Gary Martin and Sean Ekins are personal friends so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them." He may have good information, and it's great that he's sharing that information. But being friends with the subject immediately rules out the authors objectivity. That info…

The references are the corroboration.

You can still reference biased writing. It won't make the angle any more objective.

Re: Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

#15

Post by mixmax »

I once had a heated discussion with a classical violinist about who the most known Dane was outside of Denmark. She insisted that it had to be Carl Nielsen, a composer, whom she was sure everyone would know. All her friends knew Carl Nielsen, and many of them could play his most known symphonies from memory.

I'd only vaguely heard of him, and contended that maybe Hans Christian Andersen would be more known, since Disney had adopted his fairy tales and made them into stories that every child around the world would know. Or maybe Niels Bohr, since his contributions to atomic science were so great.

She would have none of it, and insisted that everyone she talked to, both in Denmark and abroad would instantly recognise Carl Nielsen, but only some would recognise Bohr, and a few didn't really know Hans Christian Andersen, and certainly didn't know all his stories by heart like they knew Carl Nielsens symphonies.

She lived in a bubble: Her friends and the people she worked with were all musicians, composers, or were otherwise deeply into classical music, so she made the obvious mistake of thinking that Carl Nielsen would be widely known, since everyone she met seemed to know him and his music well.

If you asked people on HN who the most famous Dane is David Heinemmeir Hansson might be mentioned. Or maybe Bjarne Stroustrup who invented C++, or Rasmus Lerdorrf who invented PHP, or maybe Anders Hejlsberg who invented turbo pascal, Delphi and C#, or Lars Bak who developled the Chrome V8 javascript engine and was developer lead on Googles Dart language.

You need to look beyond your own bubble to see who is notable in the general public. Ask a random stranger on the street how many pornstars he can name, and then how many scientists he can name and you'll see that the author lives in a bubble.

Re: Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

#16

Post by sanxiyn »

mixmax wrote: post #15

I once had a heated discussion with a classical violinist about who the most known Dane was outside of Denmark. She insisted that it had to be Carl Nielsen, a composer, whom she was sure everyone would know. All her friends knew Carl Nielsen, and many of them could play his most known symphonies from memory. I'd only vaguely heard of him, and contended that maybe Hans Christian Andersen would be more known, since Dis…

You are right about random strangers on the street, but Wikipedia's official policy is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)

Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular", although not irrelevant, is secondary.

So it's not all about being famous.

Re: Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

#17

Post by [deleted] »

andrewfelix wrote: post #7

I find it perplexing that someone with a science background could have said this: "Gary Martin and Sean Ekins are personal friends so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them." He may have good information, and it's great that he's sharing that information. But being friends with the subject immediately rules out the authors objectivity. That info…

[deleted]

Re: Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

#18

Post by dotBen »

andrewfelix wrote: post #7

I find it perplexing that someone with a science background could have said this: "Gary Martin and Sean Ekins are personal friends so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them." He may have good information, and it's great that he's sharing that information. But being friends with the subject immediately rules out the authors objectivity. That info…

As apposed to someone saying "I've spent many hours enjoying videos staring adult performers Belladonna and Sasha Grey so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them."...

...which by Wikipedia's standards would then be ok.

I'm pro-porn, but from my experience many of these 'fans' are so in awe of their idols they're far more likely to write biased entries than peer-scientists who are able to write about a notable scientist with a professional level of rigor.

Factor in most adult performers have all sorts of controversy surrounding them that fans will happily defend/spin you have even more room for abuse and non-NPOV articles being written about adult 'talent' (for want of a better word, that is the official industry terminology).

Re: Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

#19

Post by scarmig »

darth_static wrote: post #6
scarmig wrote: post #5

Because there are probably fewer brand name pornstars out there than people who hold a professorship of some kind?

Did you even read the article? Have a look at this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pornographic_actresses_... and try telling me with a straight face that all those actresses have a greater right to a Wikipedia page than the professors that the author mentions.

It's a question of why notability requirements are stricter on academics than pornstars. A fairly comprehensive list of pornstars will not be super huge, especially compared to academics, and will have fewer cranks trying to push a point of view through those articles. It comes down to a pragmatic point of view, not an actual argument that the least notable porn star on that list is more notable than the most notable scientist excluded from the list.

I personally say let them all in, but that battle has been fought and lost long ago.

Re: Why are pornstars more notable than scientists on Wikipedia?

#20

Post by andrewfelix »

dotBen wrote: post #18
andrewfelix wrote: post #7

I find it perplexing that someone with a science background could have said this: "Gary Martin and Sean Ekins are personal friends so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them." He may have good information, and it's great that he's sharing that information. But being friends with the subject immediately rules out the authors objectivity. That info…

As apposed to someone saying "I've spent many hours enjoying videos staring adult performers Belladonna and Sasha Grey so YES, I have close connections with the subject. And I believe I can objectively write a good article about them." ... ...which by Wikipedia's standards would then be ok. I'm pro-porn, but from my experience many of these 'fans' are so in awe of their idols they're far more likely to write biased e…

But I'm not commenting on that aspect of the argument. I'm simply pointing out that the author can not be wholly objective on the particular point I quoted.
Post reply on HN