is predicated on non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, and there is plenty of that here

WP:BIO

Her notability doesn't hinge on whether she was the principal person behind the the images

This article is much better than many others about non-notable academics!

this is good indication that the Bouman article is notable

Prominent coverage is primarily due to a facebook photo that went viral.

per WP:1E

the press should not have covered her work is original research

the subject meets criterion 7 under NACADEMIC due to the press coverage

adjust her article to reflect the analysis—in reputable secondary sources—about how the media singled her out as the "hero".

Her story *should* be on Wikipedia

Bouman has probably been covered in the news in every country in the world

She is obviously notable enough to have a profile on here

And the Washington Post story shifts gears from her role in the black hole image to online trolling focused around her,

There's now tons of in-depth coverage specifically about her

WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC.

There is no evidence that she is a "key component"

Easily notable

list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

list of Women-related deletion discussions.

list of Science-related deletion discussions.

We cover what reliable sources cover.

Something like that would almost be worth an article itself.

I don't see the policy basis for keeping this page

doesn't satisfy WP:NACADEMIC

Where do the sources say that she is tenured?

her tenured position at CalTech was announced before the media frenzy this week

I don't support deletion of the article, but the importance of the mediatic coverage and her implication in the M*87 black hole should be explicit as “member of a collaboration of 200 researchers”

Don't you think that this position is a consequence of this mediatic coverage?

She's been featured in almost all coverage

There were at least 200 people with comparable roles and dozens of people with much more notable roles in this event.

WP:1E,

These are guidelines, not policy, and based on the amount of publicity she's receiving, I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't have a well-sourced article on her.

she isn't actually credited with any notable accomplishments herself.

only in the context of WP:1E

there are many reliable sources providing significant coverage of her personally.

Bouman's not right for Wikipedia because she "is certainly not notable as a scientist",

Any relevant material can be mentioned there

of WP:1E

Someone who isn't even an assistant professor is certainly not notable as a scientist.

Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited.

The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but anyone who are in some way (remotely) associated with it are not inherently notable.

Technosocial bootstrapping of solarpunk futures for/from the Global South Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas

Fecha

6.3alineshaktifranzke, Feminist Research Ethics(explicitly taking up feminist ethics and ethics of care)

Internet Research: Ethical Guidelines 3.0Association of Internet Researchers

a su producción descentralizada, horizontal, colaborativa y solidaria, máscerca estaremos como sociedad de saber gobernarnos de manera autónomasin la necesidad de relaciones de vigilancia y castigo o de un soberano quesepa cuáles son nuestras necesidades y nuestros beneficios.

muy frecuente en amplios sectores de la población en el sigloXXI)

Esta red no es, como muchos piensan, un ente extraño que estáen todos lados y en ninguno, oalgoquetienenen la costa oeste de EstadosUnidos, en Silicon Valley; sino una red construida por varias redes en todoel mundo organizada de manera horizontal, federada y descentralizada.

Anarquismo y edición como base deun proyecto político-culturalMauricio Gómez

Wikipedia neutralizes its content by distinguishing(p.152)two layers: a visible layer of consensus backed up by an invisible yet accessible layer of discussion and a heterogeneous interpretation on the History and edit pages

But how separate or “sovereign” is this space? Can a nonprofit enclave of neutrality exist when it is woven into the corporate fabric of connective media? And how does the ideology of neutrality and objectivity relate to the sharing logic and popularity rankings fostered by Facebook and Google? In short, how does Wikipedia hold up in a culture of connectivity where the default is on frictionless sharing and data mining?

Arbitration Committee

Sociologist Christian Pentzold (2011: 718) articulates this very precisely in his ethnographic study of Wikipedia users when he observes that contributors do “not only have to learn to use the software tools, but they also have to acquire the appropriate beliefs, values

The NPoV rule is thus a guiding principle for building a functional apparatus, but that apparatus simultaneously shapes the meaning of neutrality as the “average opinion” or “shared interpretation.”

Third-party apps, like the WikiScanner, make it possible to geo-locate anonymous edits by looking up the IP addresses in an IP-to-Geo database, a listing of IP addresses and the companies and institutions they belong to, and track a potential interest

Third, articles have to be written from a “Neutral Point of View” (NPoV);

A second related rule is called “No Original Research.” Wikipedia simply does not accept new or unpublished research or original thought

First, the rule of verifiability means that readers have to be able to retrace Wikipedia content to reliable sources

over 16 percent of all edits in Wikipedia were made by bots, a number that is still growing (Geiger and Ribes2010: 119).

bots obtain their own user page

we find bots, administrators, bureaucrats, and stewards; developers and system administrators take the highest positions

Did Wikipedia need specialists(p.136)to contribute entries on one specific area, or were generalists who could write about different areas more valuable to the site? As it turned out, researchers proved that the site needs both types of input. Whereas specialists boost the site’s quality level, generalists are crucial to the connective fabric of the encyclopedia, as they tend to make more linksbetweendomains (Halatchliyski et al.2010)

Various researchers noted this dramatic shift in workload, but instead of endorsing the wisdom-of-crowds cliché, Kittur and colleagues (2007) researched “the rise of the bourgeoisie”: a marked growth in the population of low-edit users.

Until 2006, Wikipedia was largely written and maintained by a core of dedicated editors—2 percent doing 73 percent of all edits.

For instance, how does Wikipedia’s consensual apparatus relate to the ideology of sharing, as professed by Facebook and others? How does the platform’s ideology of neutrality compare to the logic of popularity ingrained in Google’s ranking(p.134)mechanisms? And how can Wikipedia hold up its nonprofit status in a network of media conglomerates that are overwhelmingly driven by the profit motive?

To many, Wikipedia is one of the few examples of what Yochai Benkler (2006: 5) has called “nonmarket peer-production” in an otherwise overwhelmingly corporate digital environment

online knowledge construction

hierarchical content management system

Wikipedia and the Neutrality Principle

International GLAM Labs Community

This suggests that conflictual games’moving-on does not rely on sustainedconversations (because participants disagree anyway) but relies on convincing the auth-ority.

Because ofthis inability to change the rules, debates thus centre on two other areas: the interpretationof these rules and the discovery of evidence to satisfy (e.g., notability) criteria.

The consultation/enforcement mode suggests the pragmatic side of a game in which theactual manifestation as a site of independent yet transparent lobbying efforts, deviatesfrom its original setup as a site of discussion.

Because closing admins are not bound to appeal to the majority, they havethe power to decide regardless of how many deleters or retainers incidentally

In the discussion game, editors par-ticipate in AfD discussions in a way that is similar to other online asynchronous chats(although lonely“discussions”with only one comment are also common)

Thisalso shows a practical side to AfD discussions—the aim is not so much about convincingothers. It is about convincing the authority.

A keydifference here with casual synchronous chats is that AfD is confrontational:

The problem is that WP:AIRCRASH is an“advice on article content,”52not a guideline.

two language games—consultation/enforcement and discussion

Also, some“dis-cussions”are not interactive—in the case when participants are all talking to the closingadmin rather than to each other

frame discussions

cascading arguments,

But manyfirst movers are more aggressive

Based mostly on signals, thisfirst move thus sounds personal rather than analytical.This is in line with Wikipedia’s spirit—consensus—but is also problematic on behalf ofCassidy03’s deletion cause.

A deleter can start with a short comment

inFigure 1.

Here,“institutionalized rules”refers to the citation of Wikipedia rules to establish legiti-macy.

Free style operationalization

1a] PerWP:NEO; this

Thefirst phase revealed four broad categories of discursive resources that editors oftenuse: institutionalized rules (Wikipedia policies/guidelines), external validators, free styleoperationalization, and signals

Data from the AfD discussion pages was collected from June 1, 2013 to June 21, 2013 (thefirst phase)

My analysis will adopt part of this critical orientation by focusingon thepower relationsbetween editors in their choice of utterance during AfD discussions.

My method of choice is discourse analysis

For the purpose of differentiation, I shall call thepersons of the actdeletersandretainers

Previousstudies of Wikipedia’s article deletion processes have shown that the lack of indicationof importance alone is the most important commonly used criterion for speedyCOMMUNICATION AND CRITICAL/CULTURAL STUDIES307

Finally, AfD discussions are conflictual.

Second,none of its participants can be certain as to what the rules of each languagegame are

First, thereisnoclearboundaryastowhoisaninsiderandwhoisanoutsiderand,ifthereisaboundary, there is high mobility between the inside and the outside (and vice versa)

I will conceptualize Wikipedia editors’online exchanges as amovein a“language game,”acentral concept of Wittgenstein’s view on language as social actions

As we shall see, much of the debate centres onthe interpretation of the“notability guideline”(WP:Notability),20which decideswhether topics should be included in this gigantic encyclopedia

We have movedaway from mass reception to a supposed age of microinteractions and reinstitutionaliza-tion of civil space.

Editors of newspapers and magazines constantly engage in the selection and silencing ofinformation in terms of choosing what to publish. This, in effect, sets a boundary betweenknowledge and“nonknowledge

Negotiating boundaries of knowledge: Discourseanalysis of Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion (AfD)discussion

The first two pairs (New Orleans and Dhaka, Metro Manila and Medellin) unpack the inequitable impacts of specific infrastructure and spatial planning interventions.

two pairs (Santiago and Jakarta, Boston and Surat) highlight procedural equity implications of decision-making approaches that exclude the poor or rely on private sector action

Future adaptation plans must critically considerthe distribution of adaptation benefits, costs, and responsibilities across society, address unsustainable and inequitable development patterns, and apply interventions that – at a minimum – treat groups equally regardless of socio-economic status or – better yet – actively prioritize beneficial outcomes for disadvantaged and vulnerable groups

However, privatization of responsibilities is also incentivizingrent-seeking behavior over the city’s infrastructure and public services. Their experiences showthat institutionalization of adaptation through public-private partnerships or private networks can sometimes yield exclusionary behaviors

Participation and inclusion of the most marginalized remain peripheral to adaptation planning

Equity Impacts of Urban Land Use Planning forClimate Adaptation

Units of analysis, then, are those things we examine in arder to create summary descriptions of ali such units and to explain differences among them

Units of Analysis

A given variable can sornetimes be measured at different levels. When in doubt, researchers should use the highest leve! of rneasurement ap-propriate to that variable so they can capture the greatest amount of information.

The Importance of Variable Names

Conceptions, Concepts, and Reality

Checklist: Theoretical Framework

Concepts often have multiple definitions, so the theoretical framework involves clearly defining what you mean by each term

In your thesis or dissertation, the theoretical framework is where you define, discuss and evaluate theories relevant to your research problem.

Sample theoretical framework

Normativa acadèmica dels estudis de doctorat de la UOC

Investigación educativa. Una competencia profesional para la intervención

Internet, escola i comunitat en el trànsit cap a la societat xarxa. La incorporació d’internet al sistema educatiu de Catalunya per al desenvolupament comunitari Meneses Naranjo, Julio

Towards a personalised virtual library: Indications from navigational and personal information behaviour of e-learning students Ferran i Ferrer, Núria

The illustrated guide to a Ph.D

Usuario:Platonides/Encarta/Artículos

Deletion discussions in Wikipedia: decision factors and outcomes

Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Mercedes del Carmen Guillén Vicente

Personas por sexo‎

Mujeres‎ (10 cat, 73348 págs.)

Este es argumento falaz denominado generalización apresurada. La relevancia enciclopédica de cada artículo debe discutirse per se, es decir, por sí mismo. Exceptuando analogías obvias cada hecho, objeto o personaje tiene su propia trascendencia y debe ser analizado por ella, no por la de otro o por la de la del género al que pertenece.

Category:Articles for deletion

Historial

Categoría:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado

Conceptualization is the process of specifying observations and measurements that give concepts definite meaning for the purposes of a research study.

Concepts are constructs; they represent the agreed-on meanings we assign to terms

Concepts are mental irnages we use as sumrnary devices for bringing together observations and experiences that seem to have something in corn-mon. We use terms or labels to reference these concepts

Conceptualization, Operationalization, and Measurement

Research Design

The theoretical framework: what and how?

COMPETITION IN DIGITAL MARKETS

Cuando miremos la cara al soldado digámosle ¿usted no es igual que yo?,

El despertar no tiene que morir nunca más! hasta que volvamos a ser seres humanos

“salgamos a las calles, hagamos líopor una sociedad justa, fraterna y compasiva”

Es el grito que recorre desde Yemen, el pueblo kurdo hasta la Araucanía, metiéndose hastalas entrañas amazónicasindígenas. Ellos que nos enseñan que todos somos responsables de la casa común, hijos de la tierra, del agua y del sol, que protegen su entorno y que se deben a su gracia. Danos la sabiduría de SalomónSeñor, para escuchar a los últimos de nuestra sociedad, a las víctimas de la sociedad de mercado, responsables también de la destrucción de la casa común.

agarraría a todos los acordeonistas y guitarristas e invitaría a bailar a la gente,

de misas convencionales

¿Qué les pasa a los pastores de Chile?

hasta que no se convierta aJesucristo.

los pacos

fomes,

¡El despertar no tiene que morir nunca más!

Do not use obviously feminine names, such as SuzyQ or Pam I Am. Do not use feminine titles like Miss, Ms, or Mrs. Do not incorporate hobbies, interests, family status, religious affiliation, etc. For example, Knit Nut, Fairly Feminist, and Lovemykids are not the best usernames if you want to avoid Wikipedia gender-based harassment.

He dedicado esta ponencia a la memoria de Rossana Brinati, bibliotecaria que nos ha dejado recientemente y que, para orgullo de todos y todas nosotras ha organizado el centro de documentación del CEDLA, uno que no solo tenía bien organizado, catalogado, clasificado, indizado y digitalizado su fondo, sino también analizado.

Porque como bien concluyen estos autores, “Si los profesionales en ciencias de la información estamos informados por el pensamiento crítico sobre la construcción de ciudadanía, no hay nada mejor que enseñar con el ejemplo”, o, en otras palabras, si creemos en el acceso a la información como parte del ejercicio de los derechos ciudadanos, enseñemos con el ejemplo.

los bibliotecarios David Ramirez y Virginia Simon(2018)

valorar las experiencias cartoneras,

Todo puede y debe ser reflexionado

Pero queda de lado, además, el carácter de ciudadano de los bibliotecarios, profesionales o no, que no ejercensu derecho al pensamiento

Y es que el pecado de estas dos instituciones fue y es ponerse “del otro lado”, del lado de las bibliotecas no neutrales, del lado de las que ofrecen información especializada y analizada, de las que creen en el acceso libre a la información

CEDIB y al CEDLA

Como bibliotecaria, es decir, como lectora

No es que la experiencia de Rumania o la de Chuquisaca no sean valiosas, pero destacadas de ese modo, le quitan a la actividad bibliotecaria su relación con lasociedad.

frontera petrolera y energética, mediante la explotación de gas y petróleo no convencional, con la tan cuestionada metodología extractivista de la fractura hidráulica o fracking.

Es decir, ¿se trata de lograr la seguridad alimentaria y mejorar la nutrición a costa de los bosques?

Pero debido a que me han pedido esta ponencia en medio del fuego, el que incendia nuestra Chiquitanía, he detenido mi lectura en los ODS referidos al medio ambiente, esperando encontrar ejemplos de cómo relacionar el quehacer bibliotecario con la lucha por el medio ambiente.

Extractivismo e información: los límites del desarrollo

Estudio Crews en detalle

It is generally agreed that literature surveys and descriptive compilations do not meet the contribution-to-knowledge re-quirement for the dissertation

Positivist versus postpositivist.

Experimental versus descriptive.

Quantitative versus qualitative.

NEW OR IMPROVED ANALYSIS Analysis may be based on existing evidence or include new data.

The evidence may be collected by an experiment, simulation, observations, questionnaire, interviews, or measurements.

The additive contribution of a dissertation may arise from 1. new or improved evidence; 2. new or improved methodology; 3. new or improved analysis; 4. new or improved concepts or theories.

The dissertation should be based on a significant question, problem, or hypothesis.

Different approaches to testing of important results. If a researcher has reported interesting results with one research technique and a given research population, a doctoral student may consider replicating the experiment, altering either the research technique or the research population.

Writers of disserta-tions commonly describe further research that needs to be done.

If there is likely to be a continuing interest, either academically or otherwise on the topic, then a student can continué to maintin scholarly capability in the área and continué to be a significant authority on the subject.

A research project will typicaliy have more than one potential outcome. For example, a research experiment may fail to dis-prove the nuil hypothesis, it may disprove it, or it may be incon-clusive.

The exploratory investigation, definition of problem, and writing normally take about half of the total time.

If no theory base can be identified, the topic should be rejected

Observations lead to theory to classify, explain, and predict the observations.

Research needed and interesting

In reading dissertations, the student should begin to formúlate a general understanding of the structure and scope of a disserta-tion, and the meaning of contribution to knowledge as applied to doctoral dissertations.

. To summarize: Your aim is to explain 1. what you are writing about —I am working on the topic of... 2. what you don't know about it—because / want tofind out... 3. why you want your reader to know and care about it—m order to help my reader understand better...

add a second indirect question that explains why you asked your first question.

When you add that because I want tofind out how/why/whether clause, you state why you are pursuing your topic: to answer a question important to you.

because I want to find out who/what/when/where/whether/ why/how .

start by naming your project:

SO WHAT?

If you are an experienced researcher, look for questions that other researchers ask but don't answer.

How does your topic fit into the context of a larger structure or function as part of a larger system?

Ask about the History of Your Topic

So the best way to begin working on your focused topic is not to find all the information you can on it, but to formúlate questions that direct you to just that information you need to answer them

If a writer asks no specific question worth asking, he can offer no specific answer worth supporting.

Caution: Don't narrow your topic so much that you can't find information on it

We narrowed those topics by adding words and phrases, but of a special kind: conflict, description, contribution, and developing. Those nouns are derived from verbs expressing actions or relation-ships: to conflict, to describe, to contribute, and to develop. Lacking such "action" words, your topic is a .static thing.

A topic is probably too broad if you can state it in four or five words