Jump to content

Talk:Annie Rauwerda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Infobox instagram personality

[edit]

I understand that Annie is closely associated with a particular instagram account, but I think that we may want to pick a different infobox, especially because we already have a separate article for that account. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 18:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Annie Rauwerda plumbs the Depths of Wikipedia? Source: "While a sophomore at the University of Michigan during COVID-19 lockdowns, Rauwerda created Depths of Wikipedia, a group of social media accounts which highlight facts from Wikipedia." [1]
    • ALT1: ... that Annie Rauwerda's viral stew cooked for over 60 days and had around 300 contributors? Source: "The stew was cooked for 60 days, ending on August 6th, 2023." [2], "Participants were encouraged to bring vegan ingredients, with about 300 people contributing to the stew." [3]
    • Reviewed: exempt

Moved to mainspace by Vermont (talk). Self-nominated at 05:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Annie Rauwerda; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Non-review comment: Yo, I am absolutely not an objective reviewer on this topic but please do not be mad! :) Annierau (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the social media post went viral, so calling it "viral stew" seems incorrect. I prefer ALT0 but will remove the word viral. If anyone objects we can revisit. It seems more interesting to me without the word viral as well.


Discussion at Perpetual stew

[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Perpetual stew#Update now that Annie Rauwerda has an article that is relevant to this article. Please feel free to participate in it over there. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's me!

[edit]

I'm very impressed by how accurate the article is. My only request is pretty tiny and trivial: can you change "Rauwerda's first in-person Depths of Wikipedia performance was in July 2021" to "Rauwerda did her first comedy set in July 2021"? It wasn't really a Depths of Wikipedia event — it was a show with other performers like Joe Pera and Please Don't Destroy. Thanks in advance and please let me know if you have any questions, photo requests, etc. :) Annierau (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! AntiDionysius (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, @Cerebral726's edit actually published just before mine. Same difference. AntiDionysius (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTWHOSWHO

[edit]

Hi! This line was removed in Special:Diff/1187412166:

"Peter McIndoe (creator of Birds Aren't Real) and Neal Agarwal (creator of The Password Game) were among stew night attendees."

Sourced to the Grub Street article, which states:

"The crowd is a mix of other internet denizens — Neal Agarwal, creator of the disarmingly wholesome game site neal.fun, and Peter McIndoe, Rauwerda’s roommate and the mind behind the faux-conspiracy account Birds Aren’t Real — and people who simply saw one of Rauwerda’s flyers."

My understanding of WP:NOTWHOSWHO is that the intent is to avoid listing non-notable people involved in a notable event, and to clarify that someone's involvement in a notable event does not make them notable. It doesn't seem to be directly related to situations like this one, i.e., when there is secondary coverage of notable people attending an event. However, I do get the point of the removal: we don't want to simply list everyone who attended, though I thought that was pertinent that Grub Street singled these two people out as attendees. Thoughts? Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we're talking about Rauwerda's bio, I'd say it'd be hard for other attendees to be relevant enough to be due to mention. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:14, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd generally agree with Sdkb here. If this were an article on the stew itself, it might be worth mentioning, but I feel like a passing mention for this sort of thing might not be warranted on a biography. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep my reasoning was that of Sdkb and Red-tailed hawk. Also, if you were to include it (which I strongly oppose), at minimum, it would need to be reworded. Mentioning people who have no personal notability, and then putting their accomplishments in parentheses, sort of brushes aside why they're important. Cpotisch (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Diff/1187705243

[edit]

Ping Cpotisch. Your edit summary refers to the content you removed as "unjustified content additions." I'm not sure what "unjustified" means: the content removed is encyclopedic and reliably sourced. That is the justification of relevance on Wikipedia. Let's review the content removed:

  • That she started the stew "with two friends". This is in the NY Times article. To not include this implies that she started the stew alone.
  • How long the soup lasted (i.e., when it ended). That was cited to Bushwick Daily. I really don't understand this one: the ending of a perpetual soup is certainly relevant in a section about it.
  • The name of the park where the public gatherings happened. This is mentioned in many sources here, including the Grub Street, NY Times, and NBC New York. It's in the first sentence of the Grub Street article. I also really don't understand this removal.
  • The sentence which mentioned that, in addition to Tiktok, there was a blog, mailing list, and google sheet. The blog is in the CBC article, and the google sheet in the Today article. The mailing list bit uses a primary source, I have no issue removing that. The CBC article, on the other hand, explicitly mentions the "insightful and comical blog" alongside TikTok as part of the "stew's journey online".
  • That "some gatherings were attended by over 100 people". The number 100 is in the NY Times article, and multiple other sources discuss the high amount of in-person participants. This is quite relevant.

...among a few other changes. Your edit removed a lot of reliably sourced content that added relevant information to the topic. Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 00:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Just because it is in an RS does not mean that it is worthy of inclusion (WP:ONUS). The stew didn't gain attention because one social media personality and her friends made it; it gained attention because it was a community event. As to how long the soup lasted, you're totally right and I don't know why I removed that (just restored it). I also won't fight you on the name of the park; I personally think that it is excessive information and not relevant for a biographic article, but it's not worth arguing over. The website also is repeatedly mentioned so I've added that back.
However, the Google sheet only shows up in a single piece, and even there it takes up only a single sentence, so I really don't think that it is worthy of inclusion. And I already kept the sentence that says that about 300 people contributed to the stew, so talking about two different metrics is odd and reads as promotional. It is important to communicate the scale of the event, but breaking it down like that does not seem productive. I'm open to maybe being persuaded on that front though. Cpotisch (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the park, my reading of the sources (especially the Grub Street one) is that their mentioning the park (and relatedly, describing the park's atmosphere) was to emphasize the local, community-oriented nature of the "stew nights". It wasn't some restaurant, it was a community park and playground. Of course, that's more relevant to the local sources (hence being in FOX 5), but to me seems relevant for inclusion here, at least to mention the park, given that multiple sources discuss it.
Re: the google sheet, agreed on that point. Checking that source again, they hyperlink that mention to the actual sheet, so it seems to be more of a "here's the rabbit hole if you want it" type-inclusion for their readers than something relevant for Wikipedia.
Re: mentioning both 300 contributors and 100 participants...I definitely see the difficulty there. I agree that both are different metrics that communicate scale, I didn't think of it that way before. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ping, forgot to above. On a separate note, I do have some concerns with the current wording, less so on what to include.
Before your edit, the line read: On June 7, 2023, Rauwerda started a vegan potato leek stew in a slow cooker with two friends. It became a perpetual stew: after each meal, some amount of the stew remains and is replenished with more broth and ingredients..
After: On June 7, 2023, Rauwerda began preparing a vegan potato leek stew in a slow cooker in her apartment, which she preserved after each meal and replenished with more broth and ingredients.
I have no problem removing "with two friends" per discussion above, but I think the wording in the former is relevantly more accurate. "Began preparing" implies that she continued preparing, when the rest of the paragraph discussed it being a joint effort of participants. I think "starting" is more accurate and less implication-laden for the rest of the paragraph.
In a similar vein to that, your wording states that she is the one who replenished it with more broth and ingredients. In my initial wording, I defined it as a perpetual stew without defining who is the one replenishing its ingredients, because it is ~300 people and was not discussed at that point in the paragraph. Could be maybe compromise on something like: On June 7, 2023, Rauwerda started a vegan potato leek stew in a slow cooker in her apartment. Some amount of the stew is preserved after each meal and replenished with more broth and ingredients. ?
Best regards, Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 01:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that suggested wording. My opposition to the "it became a perpetual stew" part is that something about it reads like it's telling a story, if that makes sense, rather than describing some encyclopedic fact. Also, it just seems a little imprecise, in the sense that it's the same stew (I use the word 'same' loosely here) all along, and I don't think there's any particular moment at which it goes from being a stew to a perpetual stew. But yeah, definitely feel free to put in that compromise. Thanks! Cpotisch (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That does make sense, thanks for explaining. I'll add the compromise wording now! :-) Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:42, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Depths of Wikipedia into Annie Rauwerda

[edit]

I had WP:BOLDLY merged these articles and was reverted with the summary "not uncontroversial, needs discussion". My reason for the merge is that the two articles offered substantially duplicate content and we should generally be avoiding this because it stretches the editor base, offers the chance for increased vandalism, and otherwise does not serve our readers to have to look at two articles to understand the full scope of the topic. Instead we can adequately cover Depths of Wikipedia in Rauwerda's article without making the page too long, while still perserving the work she did around the perpetual stew. I have no idea on what content grounds this was opposed other than the fact that I acted BOLDLY, which is itself a content guideline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC) Barkeep49 (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Depths of Wikipedia is very closely associated with Rauwerda, with no one else having run the account, and almost all coverage of it focusing as well on her. As such, this merge makes sense. No prejudice against splitting again in the future if this situation changes. (COI disclosure: I am friends with Rauwerda.) Sdkb talk 00:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. There's admittedly a lot of overlap here, and these are probably better together as one. ([Insert same COI note as Sdkb here.]) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 01:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Depths of Wikipedia has achieved critical acclaim as both a website and a show, while Rauwerda has personal notability outside of her unique notable creation and presentation. Separating the two has made sense until now, and there is little evidence to support a merge. Comparable to television shows identified with one individual, say The David Letterman Show and Letterman himself, Depths of Wikipedia certainly has enough notability to remain as a stand-alone page, as does Rauverda's personal and expanding biographical article. Nothing broken here, with little to gain from reducing a notable internet site and public performance to simply an add-on of the page of its creator. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Letterman has three notable shows so the comparison doesn't quite hold. But yes of course if/when she obtains the depth of coverage that would argue a split it would be appropriate to do so. This, for me, is about best serving our readers well by giving them a singlet place to learn about these heavily inter related topics. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sourced coverage already exists for both topics. Related yet stand-alone notable, concern about the ability of editors to protect two topics from vandals seems to be overly stretching the argument for a merge. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Depths of Wikipedia is a notable set of social media accounts. Annie Rauwerda is a notable person beyond running those accounts.([Insert same COI note as Sdkb & Bsoyka here.]) - Wil540 art (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Separate notability doesn't necessitate separate articles. (WP:OVERLAP) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 03:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think of it like an author and a book. Station Eleven is mentioned in one paragraph in Emily St. John Mandel's article and also has its own article. - Wil540 art (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't quite the same as a mention in one paragraph. Much of the Depths of Wikipedia article is directly about Rauwerda, talking about her background, inspiration, past interests, and other activities. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 04:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – it's far from clear that such a merge would be an improvement. "Depths" is certainly independently notable; Rauwerda is notable both for her Wikipedia activities, which are not limited to "Depths", and for her "Perpetual stew" exploits. Merging the two topics is basically just making matters less clear, to no benefit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: They're clearly separately notable. The real issue here is that Depths of Wikipedia has a lot of content about Rauwerda personally that shouldn't be there. But there's still easily enough sources about Depths of Wikipedia to make an article for it even if it never mentioned Rauwerda at all, and similarly there's enough sources for Rauwerda to make an article about her that didn't mention Depths of Wikipedia. (Not that I'm suggesting we should do that, to be clear: I think the overlap should be reduced but it obviously shouldn't be totally eliminated.) Loki (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree that the two subjects are clearly independently notable. The content is already quite different (Depths of Wikipedia doesn't cover Rauwerda's early life, perpetual stew project, or personal life; Annie Rauwerda doesn't cover the detailed content or reception of Depths) and will continue to diverge as Rauwerda does other things. – Joe (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - like Loki and ChiswickChap, I see the two topics as distinct and notable in their own right. They are of course linked, but not intertwined to such an extent that they should be merged. StartGrammarTime (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annie_Rauwerda&oldid=1254925646"