 | A fact from Sara Goldrick-Rab appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 March 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Notability
editThis article has been deleted twice (1, 2) before, and isn't a clear pass of the scholar notability guideline. The page creator says the prof passes the "Average Professor Test" in that she "stands out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field". As for passing #1 (significant contribution to field) or the general notability guideline, she's likely best known now for her work in relation to Obama's free community college proposal, for which she has had several significant mentions in multiple publications. However, this hasn't yet resulted in a dedicated article or profile in a national publication, as far as I know. This said, Goldrick-Rab has had enough coverage in national, reliable sources since the last deletion six years ago that I think the topic would pass muster at AfD. In addition, the draft is written well, sourced, neutral, and cited, so I'm accepting it at AfC. I should add that the page creator elaborates on her lack of personal connection with the subject on their talk page. I share an academic department with the subject but otherwise have no personal connection. Given my depth of experience on WP, its education articles, and with the PROF guideline, I'm confident that this poses no problem, though I'm happy to recuse if asked. czar ⨹ 14:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
DYK nomination
editTwitter Controversy
editNot sure the best way to approach it. I have a tendency to be too positive about praise and too negative about criticism; for that reason, I'm hesitant to update further. Perhaps it will become easier to describe as it plays out, given that it's a current event. That said, I believe that the Chronicle of Higher Education article supported the information that was there (at least at the time I edited, and at the time I'm editing this, though they've updated the article quite a bit). Czar, I'm fine with leaving as-is, though the current description of the controversy feels evasive to me. What do you all think about including information about the UW-Madison Faculty Senate executive committee statement? I feel that update to the Chronicle article is a significant move and should be included, but I also think that update should wait until things have settled down and any university or professional organizations have had the time to respond to the controversy if they choose. What are others' thoughts? OkfochushTikabi (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
We are getting into the same back and forth over whether or not to reference specific tweets. I favor providing specific detail for context in as fair a manner as possible, comparable to the referenced Chronicle article as well as one from Inside Higher Ed today (see https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/07/17/debate-escalates-over-twitter-remarks-sara-goldrick-rab-professor-wisconsin-madison ). If we reference specific tweets at this point, I would also argue that it's important to reference specific threats and responses to the situation by others. How can we work together to present this information in a neutral way while still conveying details of the controversy? OkfochushTikabi (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, first, WP avoids dedicated "controversy" sections. Second, this incident is way too small and without the framing of hindsight to give it its own section. That is why I called it undue weight in the edit summary. The College Fix source is self-described as a partisan source and described as such in the Inside Higher Ed ref. All this article needs right now is a simple sentence or two that there have been two articles written about her actions. It's worth saying that (1) it was spurred by the tenure case, (2) conservatives were upset (the gist of the first article), and that (3) the UW faculty was dismayed (forgot the exact language) at her actions (the gist of the second article). That's it. Getting into what she did specifically and what she called who what gets into all sorts of BLP issues. Keep it succinct and let the reliable sources tell us whether we need to expand. – czar 22:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm obviously new to this (I've never edited something with any sort of specific controversy) so I appreciate your expertise. I think the current version is great, as it addresses what many wanted, namely the specifics of the tweet, without dwelling on it. Thank you for working on it and explaining in more depth here so that I can learn. OkfochushTikabi (talk) 06:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Photo
editHello,
I am the subject of this article and am respectfully requesting that the photo be updated to this new one that I posted.
Thanks,
Sara Goldrick-Rab — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:42:1:C687:E14C:6143:4FEC:1D80 (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Photo
editNew photo available- could be added as the other is old. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sara_Goldrick-Rab_June_2024.jpg 68.80.11.205 (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
