User talk:DvsLmp

IntLawGrrls section removal

You removed the section about the IntLawGrrls blog from the article about Diane Marie Amann, and stated in the edit summary that you did so at Amann's request. Could you give us something by which we can verify this request? Otherwise, we will revert this material, in accordance with an agreement to not have a separate article about the blog. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Would an email from Diane suffice? Please send me an email address and I will have her get back to you shortly. If not, what else would you like?

I'm a little curious and perplexed as to why she would want information about her own blog removed. However, I must advise you that because of the contributory nature of Wikipedia, there's no real way to guarantee that such information will stay removed, since it is not defamatory. Ms. Amann does not own this article, nor does anyone else. I don't really want to give out my e-mail address here, so the best thing would be to post an e-mail from her here, with a valid reason as to why the material should be deleted, and her address so that we can verify it with her. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I will contact Diane tomorrow to see if she is comfortable putting her email address on here. If not, perhaps she can post a message to her blog that says the same? I understand that Diane does not own this article, and yes the portion on IntLawGrrls is not defamatory, but she feels it is not appropriate to have the article solely listed under her name because it is a collaborative project. She does not object if the portion on IntLawGrrls is posted alone, but feels it is unseemly to have it attributed directly to her name because many notable individuals have collaborated to make it a success. Thanks for your help with this!

Here is an email from Diane. If you would like to verify its validity, I recommend that you navigate to her faculty page (and email address) on the University of California, Davis, School of Law website.

"Dear WikiPedia editors,

I asked my RA, ***********, to create an entry for IntLawGrrls, the blog that I founded in 2007, for which more than three dozen women are now regular contributors and a hundred others have been guest contributors. He did so, only to have it rejected "because it is a blog." Neither he nor I understands this rejection, given that other publications (New York Times) and other blogs (Above the Law, Huffington Post) have WikiPedia entries. But whatever, it is fine if you do not want the entry.

It is NOT fine that you have chosen to add it to my own WikiPedia post (which I did not create, nor was it created at my request or with my knowledge). As stated above, this is a collaborative effort, and to attach it to my own entry denies its identity. It also looks as if I am self-aggrandizing. Finally, my blogging on IntlawGrrls is a very minor part of my professional identity, and to attach it in bulk to my entry as you have suggests otherwise in a way that diminishes my professional identity.

Please remove the "IntLawGrrls" subhead and content from my entry. If this is a problem for you, you are a free, as an alternative, to delete the entire entry referring to me.

Many thanks,

Diane

Diane Marie Amann

Professor of Law

Director, California International Law Center at King Hall

University of California, Davis, School of Law

400 Mrak Hall Drive

Davis, California 95616 USA"

First of all, she must recognize that her blog does not meet our notability standards, as is the case with the vast majority of blogs. To equate her blog with The New York Times is somewhat silly - that would be like comparing the Times to the twice-weekly newspaper for which I work. Similarly, blogs or blog aggregators such as Above the Law and HuffPo]] have grown to be widely quoted and recognized by numerous independent sources, a rare feat among blogs - indeed, HuffPo has grown well beyond the bounds of a simple blog. While it is admirable that Prof. Amann does not want to be recognized over and above her numerous other contributors, it remains that she is the one who founded the blog. Moreover, if there is nothing in the section about the blog that violates our policies (slander or libel, copyright violations, etc.), it does go against our precedents to remove something from an article merely because the subject requests it. And while the blog is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, it does bear mentioning in her article, and anyone looking for an article about the blog is redirected to this section anyway - making it function somewhat as a stand-alone article.

Given all that, I think it would be setting a bad precedent for us to remove the section merely because Prof. Amann requests it. Likewise, it is not an all-or-nothing deal, because she is clearly notable enough for her own article, and that fact has been recognized by editors independent of her. For her to request that the entire article be removed would also go against Wikipedia guidelines, as she does not own the article.

Therefore, I think the section should remain as is. We can add mentions of other contributors to the blog, which would definitely be merited for those contributors who also have their own articles. Perhaps that would allay Prof. Amann's concerns. We can work with her, but she must realize that she does not exercise control over the article's content, or even its existence. That's just how Wikipedia works. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)