Talk:Jamais Cascio

Outcome of AfD Discussion

Thanks to all who took the time to comment (whichever way your thumbs pointed!). As you can see, the result of the deletion discussion was 'no concensus', which I take to mean that the notice has been removed, but may return. Meanwhile, editors should work to improve the article wrt the specific issues in mind. Here's my take:

• COI, RESUME: Apart from excessive prominence given to notable references (fixed), these were spurious and never seriously raised in the discussion.
• RS: references were replaced with ones from more reliable and independent sources, so the discussion was constructive in that sense. One criticism was that there was too much reliance on references written by the subject. When they have gone through a form of peer review (ie independent published journal), I think such references are acceptable, indeed preferred, when the subject is doing OR (you want to get it 'from the horse's mouth, so to speak). However, the commentary that ought to accompany such items should be via an independent source. If you can't find any, it suggests the item is not of great significance.
• N: At what point does someone become 'notable'? Even though WP gives guidelines, it can still be a vague issue. There is, in fact, plenty of material where the subject and his work is referred to by others. Pre-AfD, the article perhaps relied too heavily on specific mentions by FP, Kaku, and Sterling. These were and remain valid points, but were presented too prominently, and this may have been partly to blame for the accusations of 'self-promotion'. The main argument for deletion was that many other references were of a passing nature. This doesn't make such references bad, but their relevance would be improved if they are shown to be part of an ongoing conversation. One way to demonstrate N more effectively would be to add sections covering discussions the subject has had with others (eg the effect of search engines on education)

Final point: someone picked me up on referring to myself as the 'curator' of this article. I selected the term in preference to subtle references to me as the 'subject' (see COI). My name is Anthony Fisk, not Jamais Cascio. I am not the subject of this article, but nor do I consider myself the 'owner' (although I appear to be the only editor active at present, and might be accused of arranging the furniture to taste, and of excessive waffling into the void)Arfisk (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Additional material

List any suggestions for additional material here (with refs). Arfisk (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

(To avoid excessive clutter, remove material that has been added. Note links that have been rejected, so they aren't inadvertently re-inserted.) Arfisk (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Biography

One criticism of the article is that it currently reads like a resume rather than a biography. Fair point, although I would suggest a person is made 'notable' more by their body of work than how they live. That discussion was had elsewhere. Meanwhile, a Biography section would be worthwhile... when references that meet [WP:BLP] guidelines can be found. Arfisk (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hints that Cascio editted the college magazine while at Cowell House? Arfisk (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
• Currently seeking sources to establish when Cascio worked where.Arfisk (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Projects

(Add prototype sections on specific projects here for discussion.)

Discussions

(Add prototype sections on specific conversations here for discussion.)

Apart from specific projects, several references involving Cascio are in relation to extended conversations about his work. Some of these may be worth noting. eg: The 2008 article by Nicholas Carr on "Is Google Making us Stupid", and Cascio's subsequent rebuttal has attracted some interest. I propose to build up brief accounts of such discussions here before putting them in the article itself; assuming the result is worth it. Arfisk (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• One section currently meets this description. I've simply added it to 'Projects' for now. It might be better to do this with other 'discussions', and select another title for 'Projects'Arfisk (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Is Google making us stupid?

• The Pew article has a rich set of responses. It would be interesting to see what the results would be if the question were asked of a wider audience (academics being used to deep analytical thinking as being part of their job). Any refs to that effect? Arfisk (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Launched. Let's see how it floats. Arfisk (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• Interesting. Carr's original thesis has quite an extensive article devoted to it. It contains no references to Cascio's response, though. Probably should add one, and perhaps transfer some of the content over. Arfisk (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Useful links

Online reference links to be added (remove as they are added):

There should be a separate section for Essay listings. Arfisk (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. However, essay listings look a bit dry, and really only duplicate the reference section. Suggest a rewrite as descriptive sentences summarising the points of each article. Arfisk (talk) 04:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Publications

• https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Jamais+Cascio&fq=&dblist=638&qt=first_page (OCLC author search yields a few listings worth pursuing) Arfisk (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamais_Cascio&type=revision&diff=681128881&oldid=681124583 (this comparison highlights items removed for violating criteria for BLP. Consider for source material, but do not simply reinstate. Arfisk (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamais_Cascio&type=revision&diff=681122343&oldid=680834101 Contains films references removed by bot. Again, do not simply reinstate. Arfisk (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_end_of_america/2009/08/how_is_america_going_to_end_6.html (long crisis scenario)Arfisk (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-202211174/big-ideas-for-saving-the-earth-accelerating-climate Worth considering for commentary on Geoengineering Arfisk (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB848508202611511000 Refers to Cascio at GBN Arfisk (talk) 11:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/07/get-smarter/307548/ Transhumanism Arfisk (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Bruce Sterling has referred to him as "the adult in the room". This sentence was removed as being too weakly supported to establish N. However, the refs may of future use elsewhere. (Interesting point about RS: Sterling (N) at Wired (RS) is simply referring to a web article that has since been archived. Original point was Sterling's remark, but is the article itself RS? Probably not) Arfisk (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27711-filtered-existence-are-we-ready-for-a-mute-button-in-real-life/ about the ability/advisability to have wearable technology filter out reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arfisk (talk • contribs) 06:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Quality improvements

Biography

List suggestions to improve biography quality here. Arfisk (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Quality criteria suggests the content is at 'Start' level: current references being valid and reliable. More descriptive content would round the article up. Arfisk (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Once additional references are included, consider what's needed to raise to 'c' level (Incidentally, I realise this is currently a one man show, and I won't doing any boosting without seeking other opinions.). Arfisk (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Alternate Views

List suggestions to improve Alternate View quality here. Arfisk (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this Article fits the criteria for this Classification. The Subject is a forecaster, who describes future scenarios based on current social/technological trends. He may come up with some surprising predictions, but that doesn't necessarily mean he espouses 'alternate' views. Will reconsider when more content is added. Arfisk (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'Humanist' project would be more appropriate but, again, is it truly relevant? Arfisk (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the project tag for these reasons, but will keep this section for now.Arfisk (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Environment

List suggestions to improve Environment quality here. Arfisk (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Importance Rating

Biography

Assess importance to this Project. Arfisk (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Environment

Assess importance to this Project. Arfisk (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Notability issues

• References where the subject or their work is discussed as a substantial part (a paragraph or more) of the referring article. *More passing references might be considered if several form part of a conversation between RS (and the conversation appears 'notable')
• As the subject is a writer who does OR, I think it acceptable to use references to his work to 'establish the fact', but *only* if an independent commentary on that work can be found.

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce his name? --JWB (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jamais Cascio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201050150/http://www.wfs.org/node/797 to http://www.wfs.org/node/797

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)