Talk:The Internet of Garbage

Restore redirect and expand on author's page?

Sorry for the typo in my edit summary--I meant to say "valid search term" not "valid search time"! What would folks think my suggestion, that we make it back into a redirect and expand the material about the book on the author's main page? Or alternately, working it up in a userpage/sandbox and add all at once? I do think probably the redirect is the best route just now--unless a book has quite a lot of coverage, an author's who've only put out one book so far usually have just an author bio or a book page on Wikipedia, but not both. Seems like we're pretty committed to the author bio, at this point. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course there's no rush. We could also work here for a bit and then readd to the main page. I just bring it to the talk page after deprodding because I don't think we need to waste anyone's time with an AfD when I think we can probably find something mutually agreeable. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping anyone from expanding the section on the book in Jeong's article (in fact it would help with the undue-weight situation regarding the tweets controversy), but I think the book meets WP:NBOOK so I don't think it should be redirected without an AfD. Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I know the article I created was bad. I overestimated my resources and it was 1 AM where I live when I published it, but right now thanks to other editors the article seems fine, and considering the number of sources and the notability standards for books I am pretty sure it does meet the wikipedia notability guidelines. Maybe just barely, but it does Openlydialectic (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fair on all counts, and, looks like the matter’s been resolved promptly! Thanks to all doing extensive work on this entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you to everyone who is and/or has been expanding and improving this article! Softlavender (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Glad to help. I was honestly not expecting to find as much as I did. There are a lot of brief mentions, incidental title-drops, etc., to sift through, many of them generated by the recent dust-up. But digging under that layer found more that was worth noting. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• You've done a fantastic job, XOR'easter. As of now you have written the bulk of the article: [1]. -- Softlavender (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Discontinued?

according to the firsr cited link, the book has been discontinued. Should the article be amended to reflect that? PaulCHebert (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, since Forbes routinely discontinues all of its eBooks after a few years, as can be seen at the link; 33 of its 45 eBook titles have been discontinued: [2]. Also, we have no WP:RS citation stating when it was discontinued. Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Was concerned that the book got pulled because of the ongoing kerfuffle. PaulCHebert (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Looking through the Wayback Machine snapshots, it appears that the book was discontinued sometime between March 18th and April 11th of this year. This was well before the recent dust-up, and so I doubt there were any sinister motives. XOR'easter (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure where I read it (twitter ?) but apparently forbes' license for the publication rights has expired. She is now looking if she wants to republish it either herself, or with another publisher. But I think she is a bit busy atm. ;) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Found it —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:17, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, interesting, thanks. I didn't know that very limited-time contracts was the reason Forbes' ebooks get "discontinued" so frequently. Softlavender (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that! I think Jeong's own statement would count as an RS for this purpose (per WP:TWITTER); I mean, the details of author/publisher contracts are hardly "exceptional claims". But it's probably not necessary to write about it in the article anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Citations

I'm moving the list of citations of the book here for now; it clutters up the references section without adding add much in terms of understanding the topic. Feel free to restore any refs that discuss the book itself.

Citations

Banet-Weiser, Sarah; Miltner, Kate M. (2015-12-22). "#MasculinitySoFragile: culture, structure, and networked misogyny". Feminist Media Studies. 16 (1): 171–174. doi:10.1080/14680777.2016.1120490. ISSN 1468-0777. Salter, Michael (2017-02-14). "From geek masculinity to Gamergate: the technological rationality of online abuse". Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal. 14 (2): 247–264. doi:10.1177/1741659017690893. ISSN 1741-6590. Hoffmann, Anna Lauren; Jonas, Anne (2016-09-08). "Recasting Justice for Internet and Online Industry Research Ethics". Internet Research Ethics for the Social Age: New Cases and Challenges. Rochester, NY. Wachter-Boettcher, Sara (2017-10-10). Technically Wrong: Sexist Apps, Biased Algorithms, and Other Threats of Toxic Tech. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393634648. Frost-Arnold, Karen (2016-08-12). "Social Media, Trust, and the Epistemology of Prejudice". Social Epistemology. 30 (5–6): 513–531. doi:10.1080/02691728.2016.1213326. ISSN 0269-1728. van der Nagel, Emily (2017). Social Media Pseudonymity: Affordances, Practices, Disruptions (PDF) (PhD). Swinburne University of Technology. Rimmer, Matthew (2017). "The Dancing Baby: copyright law, YouTube, and music videos". In Richardson, Megan; Ricketson, Sam (eds.). Research Handbook on Intellectual Property in Media and Entertainment. Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 9781784710798. Clark-Parsons, Rosemary (2018). "Building a digital Girl Army: The cultivation of feminist safe spaces online". New Media & Society. 20 (6): 2125–2144. doi:10.1177/1461444817731919. Grimmelmann, James. "To Err is Platform". Knight First Amendment Institute, Columbia University. Retrieved 2018-08-06.

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Page count

My old PDF copy of the Forbes edition is 78 pages long; the PDF of the Verge reissue is 79. I don't know where "92" came from, but given the nature of e-books, I don't think we should bother putting a page count in the publication history section or the infobox. XOR'easter (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2018 (UTC)