Contents

Talk:Kelsey Piper

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 Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Effective Altruism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Journalism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

It is requested that a photographbeincluded in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A fact from Kelsey Piper appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 2 February 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that journalist Kelsey Piper sees her Vox column as a way to popularize discussion of global catastrophic risks? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kelsey Piper.

This is puffed-up and is not showing evidence of third-party coverage in independent WP:RSes, to the standard required for a WP:BLP to exist.

WP:NJOURNALIST sets out the following prongs for notability under that guideline: # The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

1. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
2. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
3. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

None of these seem to pass. It's not clear the proffered evidence even meets the first criterion in EA.

WP:BEFORE shows almost entirely articles by Piper, but not a word about Piper. This fails to meet general notability guidelines either.

Journalists need to have been written about, not just have stuff written by them. Are the cites in this article absolutely the best to be found about Piper? - David Gerard (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- thanks for stating your concern, @David Gerard. (I'd dispute the 'puffed up promotional' in the edit summary, because I actually think the EA movement is deeply misguided, but I don't think what I personally think about a minor philosophical movement is relevant to Wikipedia except inasmuch as it disclaims the POV/COI issue.) I triple-checked that Piper had the material to pass WP:GNG before I wrote this. The coverage here is independent of the subject, reliable, and significant/non-trivial. Is she the most famous journalist to pass notability standards? No, and I wouldn't claim that. But she's important in a subculture, and I gathered what was discussed in it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a non-notable podcast as a whole paragraph is pushing it. Zero biographical coverage of Piper in RSes. Claims about her that the sources just don't support. That sort of thing. As I ask above: are the cites in this article absolutely the best to be found about Piper? - David Gerard (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The podcast in question has its own article of uncontroversial (in the past several years) notability, so I'd say 'non-notable' is itself pushing it. Overall, I don't see any issue with the majority of the article's sources and find the idea of pushing "are these the best to be found about her" confusing. The source I do get where you're coming from is the WANBAM one, which I attempted to describe more as an attribution than a 'fact' (amongst other things, it's not really a statement you can make factual claims about), but the overall image really doesn't seem like a matter of exaggeration or puffery to me. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The result was: promotedbySL93 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that journalist Kelsey Piper sees her Vox column as a way to popularize discussion of global catastrophic risk?Source: Can journalists still write about important things?

• Reviewed: N/A, <5 DYKs

Created by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 08:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Just a comment: Your hook links to a disambiguation page, which is probably not intended. You should pipe the link to the specific vox article you are referring to. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that! Fixed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - see below

Overall: @Vaticidalprophet: Great work on this page. The only issue I can see is that reference 6 has an unreliable-source tag, which should probably be fixed per WP:DYKSG#D6. Once that's resolved, the nomination is good to go. Epicgenius (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, @Epicgenius! It should be good now. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: No problem, should be good to go then. Epicgenius (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]