Talk:Joseph M. Reagle Jr./Archive 1

Archive 1

Recreated

I've recreated this since he's had much more coverage since this closed in March. I was going to just run this via the deleting admin first, but there was so much that I think that he'd easily pass beyond a reasonable doubt now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Tokyogirl79, I see you resurrected the page. For those that are interested in improving it, I created a Bio-factoids page with plenty of accurate and sourced details. -Reagle (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Is this person notable? If so, maybe we could mention what makes him notable in the article. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus, For those that are interested in improving it, I created a Bio-factoids page with plenty of accurated and sourced details. -Reagle (talk) 18:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we should switch from a list of titles and awards (and interviews, etc.) given to him for his achievements to mentioning what were the actual contributions that this person has put forth to elicit these distinctions. I don't mean that we should remove the distinctions; they are fine as part of a biography. But if one reads this article alone, it seems like this person is notable forbeing notable. Maybe that's good enough to meet wikipedia standards, but it really doesn't make for an interesting/informative article. I am sure this person has done some interesting things, they just aren't mentioned here. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Hamsterlopithecus, part of what makes Reagle pass notability guidelines is that his work has been the focus of coverage in independent and reliable sources. He's received coverage for both of his books, enough to where he would pass WP:NAUTHOR. So basically, he's notable as an author, which is shown in the article. If you want to expand the article to include things that aren't in the article, feel free. The main limitation is that we'd need to have reliable sources to back them up. Reagle has provided some primary sources, but there's only so much we can do with those. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe we can include some of the major theses of each of his books and maybe other articles of major importance. This will provide some context as to why he has received the coverage he has. Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with his work. Do we have any sources that may provide this "summary" or "overview" for us? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've only read one of his books, the most recent one and can't really bring up anything other than a superficial summary to mind, I'd have to go find my book to really do anything more. However since Reagle does monitor this page, he might be willing to write up a brief summary of the books' theses that we could use? (After ensuring it's NPOV, of course.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hamsterlopithecus and Tokyogirl79, on the latest book, I would recommend the Dawn Eyestone's [PopMatters review](http://www.popmatters.com/review/195079-reading-the-comments-likers-haters-and-manipulators-at-the-bottom-of/); it's the most extensive. In the first chapter of both books there is a concluding section that outlines what to is come in the subsequent chapters. *Reading the Comments* first chapter can typically be read from Amazon or Google Books. There's also my notes from the book talk. Let me know if you want more. -Reagle (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Error in citation and in need of update

"Open Content Communities" was not published in 1996, but in 2004. I think someone looked at the mangled version of 'Folklore, Horror Stories, and the Slender Man' offered by Google Books. I recommend you use my CV or User:Reagle/Bio-factoids for such things. - Reagle (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

This page is still quite out of date and I provide User:Reagle/Bio-factoids for its improvement. I'm also adding the {{request edit}} template. -Reagle (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Reply 25-APR-2018

That date is listed as 2004. I will have a look at your draft version.   SPINTENDO          13:59, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, I thought the linked CV was a draft version. However, it's structure is different from the article. In order to proceed, kindly include with your request a complete and specific description of your requested changes — by specifying what text should be removed along with a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it — in the form of "Please change X to Y". I assure you that your request will be expedited. Thank you!   SPINTENDO          14:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@Spintendo: thank you for the response. Yes, the specific complaint about 1996/2004 is now addressed but there's lot's of other mistakes and shortcomings. Did you see User:Reagle/Bio-factoids? A lot of material could be ported from there. In any case here's two X to Y transformations on the most eggregious problems:

Change: "Good Faith Collaboration (2012)" to "Good Faith Collaboration (2010)"

Change: "Joseph Michael Reagle Jr. is an American academic and author focused on technology and Wikipedia. He is Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at Northeastern University, and a faculty associate at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society." to "Joseph Reagle is an American academic and author focused on technology and culture, including Wikipedia. He is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at Northeastern University (2011-). He has worked at the World Wide Web Consortium (at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1996-2003) and has twice been in a Resident Fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (at Harvard University, 1998 and 2010)."

-Reagle (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)