I've just created an NYRSF Index page

I created a page on this site to host the (rather large, cumberbersome) NYRSF index, carefully maintained by the marvelous Eugene Surowitz. What we have indexed is about 4.3 million words of science fiction criticism and reviews not on the web. (I need to go into the main NYRSF site and make a link to it.)

FURTHER TO THE SUBJECT OF WIKIPEDIA: All publications by staff members of NYRSF in NYRSF have been deemed "self-published" and therefore not worthy of mention in Wikipedia by one SlimVirgin.  UPDATE: She's threatened to "block" me for mentioning that. Translation: "Shut up," she explained.

Anyone disagree? I'm not sure what the current state of things is, but most of the NYRSF essays she declared self-published were (at least at one time, possibly still) listed in the MLA bibliography.

Comments

[orangemike]

The problem is one of self-advertisement, a perennial problem with Wikipedia. As it is, there is a constant flow of self-aggrandizement by publicity hogs who just want to see themselves listed as the hottest of hot patooties in whatever section of the universe they infest. As a result, more moderate Wiki editors than SlimVirgin have long since set up principles of which you have run afoul:
1) articles about a person should not be written by that person or their close friends and associates, not should articles about a project be written by principals in said project
2) as a rule, anything published or edited by the subject of the article is considered suspect as a source of information and not a valuable measure of notability or significance

[Scraps]

Ooh, she's going to shake her petty power at you! That's Wikipedia for you.

What a bunch of children.

[Kathryn Cramer]

But that is of course why one needs someone with knowledge in the subject area. And this is why you can't solve the problem algorithmically. (I work for Wolfram where we at least try to solve everything alogrithmically and learn from the failures.)

I have no particular need for a bio there but want whether I have one to be a settled question because I've risen just far enough in the world to figure into a few people's conspiracy theories. (Though disappointlingly, it is not yet rumored that I am a member of the Trilateral Commission.)

One of the big ironies of this is that I am the sort of person who forgets to send in the bio to the convention for the program book and mostly forgets to promote her own books on her own blog. SV can kill this hostage if she wants and the burning KC in effigy will be meaningless. (Except that I'll get a t-shirt out of it.)

I bought access to the Marquis Who's Who database today. That should allow for some interesting crossreferencing.

[Mark Bernstein]

This "policy" would mean, of course, that fifty years of TALK OF THE TOWN (and much of the rest of The New Yorker under Ross and Shawn) would be considered self-published and therefore worthless in wikipedia's (or SlimVirgin's) eyes.

But don't worry; they still will offer 10,000 words on Hulk Hogan, 4500 on Doug "The Rock" Johnson, 1100 on Dan "Voice of Grandpa Simpson" Castellaneta, and 1300 on Nina Hartley, the starring actress in "Debbie Duz Dishes".

Contemporary biography is intractable for Wikipedia.

[Jonathan Vos Post]

What a great NYRoSF index!

Egosearching, I immediately found

Post, Jonathan V., Hypertext Sonnet: Lines from Robert
Silverberg's Star of Gypsies, Issue 27, November 1990,
Vol. 3, No. 3, p. 7, boxed feature

Thus you can claim that you've been explicitly publishing hypertext since no later than Nov 1990, i.e. for 17 years. Doesn't that give you some priority over Wikipedia?

Hypertext poetry, of which I followed in the footsteps of those great "if A had written B" poems clusters in MAD magazine of the 1950s and 60s, except conscious of hypertext, first appeared labeled as such in:

* "Hypertext Sonnet: Lines from 'A Shropshire Lad'" [Datamation, p.24, July 1982]

* "Computer Cures Roethke's 'Dolor'" [Datamation, p.172, Aug 1982]

I had the inside track, as coimplementer of hypertext for personal computers, working directly with Ted Nelson, as we demo'd at the world's first personal computer convention, Philadelphia 1976, where I also gave the the first public lecture on hypertext in canonical Literature.

[Kathryn Cramer]

The idea of editing as a blood sport is really intriguing. Now, I am married to someone who used to work under the person whose antics were one of the main sources of the movie Wolf -- the individual in question really did pee on someone's shoes in the corporate men's room, I'm told -- so I am familiar with the dark psychopathic underbelly of the actual publishing industry.

But at WIkipedia, "editing " is a form of combat, one quite unfamiliar to me.

[Jonathan Vos Post]

I suggest a behind the scenes story based on Jonathan Swift's "The War of the Books."

Readers see the books fighting each other. Lifting the curtains, we see the editors pulling the strings of the books, the better to stab other editors in the back.

Sly references to authors inserting themselves as characters, including Cervantes encountering, in 2nd volume of Don Quixote, a character who claims to know Cervantes, "Typewriter in the Sky" by L. Ron Hubbard, and the recent Will Ferrell film that re-invented this trope (but which ignored the notion that the author should suspect that she's a character in some greater fiction).

And speaking of Will, I suppose that Wikipedia should drop articles about Shakespeare, as he was editorially involved in the troupe that performed his plays, and he appeared onstage himself in at least 4 established instances, such as the narrator in Henry V who explains why the Aristotelian Unities are being violated, and then gives a cinematic description of us flying across the English Channel.

[SWATJester]

Or, you know, you could attempt to make yourself aware of what the Wikipedia policies and procedures are before you violate them. That might be too much to ask of a self proclaimed "internet consultant", but gosh, the list of policies is linked from every single page.....