[flagged]
Why?
Jessica Livingston (2015)
11–20 of 202 posts
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#12[flagged]
This comment seems off topic?
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#13While we're on the topic, she's also the author of this wonderful book of founder interviews, which is illuminating even 15ish years after publication. I highly recommend it if you haven't come across it yet: https://www.amazon.com/Founders-Work-Stories-Startups-Early/...
Seconding that, it's easily my favorite business/entrepreneurship book. It's very helpful for getting in the mindset if you're trying to figure out how to start a company, but it's also just really interesting and entertaining in its own right.
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#14I can only imagine this is related to PG‘s recent tweet about how the Wikipedia article on Jessica has “questionable notability” warning due to sexist nonsense.
Anybody in the world can put a notability tag on an article in Wikipedia. The notability tag is properly read as a "this article needs more sources and more claims of notability" call for help, not a "get this article off the site" argument. Livingston will have no trouble maintaining a Wikipedia article; she's had profiles written about her in mainstream sources. A big chunk of complaints about Wikipedia notability…
Anyone who's seen an article covering a topic of personal interest removed due to "lack of notability" would be forgiven for assuming the bar is "important to an arbitrary few editors", because that is the bar.
From the examples I've encountered over the years, once an article is deemed irrelevant, it is deleted permanently with little to no opportunity for recovery (unless some event makes the subject suddenly more noteworthy). The reality is the most active Wikipedia editors make great contributions to the world's knowledge, but aren't exactly the most representative sample of humanity.
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#15I understand the optics involved with the Wikipedia situation.
But an automated script (AnomieBot) tagged that article because it met or rather didn’t meet certain guidelines. It’s a stub article and lacked certain citations.
Why not just flesh the article out?
The “Notability” tag on Wikipedia has a different meaning than “notability” in the dictionary.
Either way, it seems like someone already removed the tag manually with the justification “clearly notable” and uploaded a better photo.
There’s still a lack of information though.
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#16So pg had a secret weapon all along.
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#17I can only imagine this is related to PG‘s recent tweet about how the Wikipedia article on Jessica has “questionable notability” warning due to sexist nonsense.
Anybody in the world can put a notability tag on an article in Wikipedia. The notability tag is properly read as a "this article needs more sources and more claims of notability" call for help, not a "get this article off the site" argument. Livingston will have no trouble maintaining a Wikipedia article; she's had profiles written about her in mainstream sources. A big chunk of complaints about Wikipedia notability…
I always found it a mix of amusing and annoying that my complaints about Wikipedia are usually self-defeating: "This article is bad! They should have ... okay, I should ... nevermind."
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#18I can only imagine this is related to PG‘s recent tweet about how the Wikipedia article on Jessica has “questionable notability” warning due to sexist nonsense.
Anybody in the world can put a notability tag on an article in Wikipedia. The notability tag is properly read as a "this article needs more sources and more claims of notability" call for help, not a "get this article off the site" argument. Livingston will have no trouble maintaining a Wikipedia article; she's had profiles written about her in mainstream sources. A big chunk of complaints about Wikipedia notability…
Exactly. I left a similar comment.
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#19[flagged]
Why?
Because she's seen all their pitches to YC. And that Social Radar of hers should get a good read on crypto bros, and so the question is how many of them are grifters and con artists trying to cash in on the next Bitcoin, and how many of them are true believers of the ideals being spouted. And how many of them are, actually, honestly, good people.
Re: Jessica Livingston (2015)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anybody in the world can put a notability tag on an article in Wikipedia. The notability tag is properly read as a "this article needs more sources and more claims of notability" call for help, not a "get this article off the site" argument. Livingston will have no trouble maintaining a Wikipedia article; she's had profiles written about her in mainstream sources. A big chunk of complaints about Wikipedia notability…
Anyone who's seen an article covering a topic of personal interest removed due to "lack of notability" would be forgiven for assuming the bar is "important to an arbitrary few editors", because that is the bar. From the examples I've encountered over the years, once an article is deemed irrelevant, it is deleted permanently with little to no opportunity for recovery (unless some event makes the subject suddenly more…
Cite examples, so we can look at the deletion log and the AfD and make up our own minds.