Talk:Steven Pruitt

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mention on CBS News

"Meet the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia" (26 January, 2019). The Time article, already cited in the page, appeared in 2017. Since that time, other outlets such as CBS have also covered Steven Pruitt, sometimes with additional interviews and reporting. EdJohnston (talk) 17:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And a recent article from cbs17.com here. Even the UK's Daily Mail seems to have got it all right this time. Is there a free image of Pruitt available? Would he wish to supply one? Martinevans123 (talk)
If no one else is going to do it, then I guess it's up to me to at least note for the record the nonsensical reasoning of CBS News, which states that "one-third of all English language articles on Wikipedia have been edited by Steven." On that basis, CBS crowns him, in the words of their headline, "the man behind a third of what's on Wikipedia." I think it's safe to say that Steven Pruitt, for all his heroics, did not single-handedly write a third of all Wikipedia articles. Seriously, when I edit punctuation on a page by adding a comma, it doesn't make me "the man behind" that article. It just means I made a minor edit that not only comprises a tiny part of one page, but represents an infinitesimal speck of what's on Wikipedia. My hat's off to Steven, but CBS News is guilty of hyperbole that, I am confident, would be quickly reverted if they added it to Wikipedia. NedFausa (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NedFausa: I guess "User with most edits on Wikipedia has made over 3 million edits to Wikipedia mostly using automated tools, while Wikipedia has been edited almost a billion times in total, and in fact less than 1 % of his edits are page creations" would just be a much less interesting story, but I agree with you. See also User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao/Archive 37#CBS, where the matter was discussed. Steven even said he did a demonstration of AWB, but obviously including that would have lowered the value of the report. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition on the Wikipedia template

Have added a section at talk {{Wikipedia}} template to add Pruitt as well as other prominent editors who have Wikipedia pages. Please comment there, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and notability

There was a pre-existing discussion over on Draft_talk:Steven_Pruitt, before this article got created. Here are the sources I dug up for that discussion.

Here are the major sources I saw available:

Here are some other lesser sources:

Here are some derivative pieces:

I think this is a very visible topic here at WP, and it's a matter of time before this article is submitted for AfD. It has happened before. An article about a Wikipedian will be more scrutinized, to make sure we aren't navel-gazing. I think there's a reasonable case for Pruitt's notability, but it's not a slam dunk. Try to rely more on the best sources, which are TIME, Washington Post, and CBS News. Do the sources highlight what makes him important other than just edit counts? Efforts to promote female inclusion in Wikipedia, or historical preservation? ——Rich jj (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this article is clearly a "keep". Feature articles specifically about him from the Washington Post and CBS News, and being named one of the 25 most influential people on the internet by TIME? We routinely accept less than this as proof of notability; he more than satisfies GNG. I'm watchlisting this page so that if it gets AFDed I can comment there. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies about women

The CBS News piece (not the written article, but the video) says that he has now written over 600 articles about women. This article says 200. Assuming CBS News has it right, shouldn't this be corrected? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found another reference so I am going to change it to 600. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate is from primary source

His birthdate on the opening line and info box is sourced to a search engine. It's OR and a primary source. It needs to be removed unless a proper secondary or tertiary source is provided. 98.165.105.12 (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Pruitt has confirmed on his own talk page that this database does in fact contain his date of birth. But this doesn't seem to matter given that WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly says not to use public records sites like this one. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

Why do we say in the lead sentence "from San Antonio, Texas"? He's lived in Virginia since he was 5 years old.[1] We could say "from Virginia" or we could just leave out where he's from. It's certainly not the most notable thing about him. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and boldly edited it to say "American". The sources state he's born in San Antonio and lives in Virginia but that's already in the body of the article and I agree with you that which state he's in isn't important enough for the lead; I think it's enough to say he's an American. Leviv ich 19:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought if that's good enough for Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and Jimmy Wales, it's probably good enough for Pruitt? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123, well I don't know... how many articles have they written? :-D Leviv ich 22:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How very true. And a big up to San Antonio and a big up to Mount Vernon, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the term "volunteer"

I removed the term "volunteer" from the first sentence, but was reverted. The word "volunteer" is unnecessary because almost all Wikipedians are volunteers. The fact that a Wikipedia editor edits Wikipedia voluntarily is not anything exceptional that needs to be mentioned; in fact the contrary applies. Other BLPs on people primarily known for Wikipedia editing, such as Emily Temple-Wood, do not include the term "volunteer". I propose removing this term from this article. feminist (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: almost all Wikipedians are volunteers. Readers might be tempted to assume that the Wikipedian with 3 million edits is one of the rare ones who are not volunteers, and so it's worth emphasizing that he is a volunteer. That said, there's no real way to tell one way or another what readers are assuming, so I don't have strong feelings about it. My concerns about false assumptions would probably be adequately handled if it were mentioned somewhere in the body; doesn't need to be in the lead. Leviv ich 19:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I occasionally see stuff like this, and describing a Wikipedia editor as "volunteer" is not much different. feminist (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who inserted "volunteer". The vast majority of readers have no idea that Wikipedia is written by volunteers, and most would naturally assume that he is doing all this for pay. (I mean, c'mon - who would do so much work for FREE?) When you talk to people about Wikipedia, don't you find they are surprised (more like astonished) to find out that the project is written and maintained entirely by volunteers? I think it is important to emphasize the voluntary nature of what he does in the first paragraph. If people don't like using it as an adjective to describe him, we could add a second sentence "Like all Wikipedia editors, Pruitt is a volunteer." But I prefer a simple "volunteer Wikipedia editor." -- MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but that would also be an argument for adding "volunteer" to other articles on Wikipedia editors. Slightly off topic but if anyone is surprised that Wikipedia is written and maintained by volunteers, the surprise would be because of Wikipedia's incessant donation banners. Most people don't know that these only go to the WMF and not editors. feminist (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the word 'volunteer' should be included, per points brought up in this discussion. This is not an in-house article about a fellow editor, but an article about a prominent individual in a world-wide endeavor - the creation of the largest, more varied, and hopefully most accurate encyclopedia in history. Readers who come to this pages should have the full explanation of how this is accomplished, and the word 'volunteer' concisely accomplishes that. Yes, good idea, it should also be included on the other topic-appropriate articles about prominent Wikipedians if it's not there already. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support adding the word "volunteer" to all articles about notable WP editors - those that are actually notable for their volunteer editing and not for WMF-related work. We don't know how many people read these articles, but it can't hurt to let the world know what so few people seem to know - that this is encyclopedia is created and maintained entirely by volunteers. Most non-Wikipedians find that to be astonishing, because, get real - how could that possibly be pulled off? "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work.[2] -- MelanieN (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I consider that we also have bios on WMF folks, I do think it’s important to distinguish between them and volunteer editors, as that important distinction won’t be obvious to readers. Support “volunteer” being included in the lead of every article about volunteer editors (and “employee” or something similar for those who are paid). Leviv ich 18:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree Pruitt should be described as a volunteer. Everyone know Albert Einstein was a Physicist, nevertheless, our article on him should explicitly say he was a Physicist. The same principle applies here. Geo Swan (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who is our audience?

In this edt a contributor removed the brief paragraph that notes CBS broadcast an interview with Pruitt, with the edit summary "Removing one-sentence section that says "Pruitt was interviewed"... we already use the ref in the article, so the astute reader will deduce he has spoken to the media"

Woah! Woah! Woah! Who says we only write for "astute readers"? Sure, some of our readers are astute. Some may be smarter than we are. But surely we write for everyone who can perform a web search, which includes a lot on readers who are not astute. Plus, even smart people like to reserve their cognitive reserve for tasks that really require them.

I think the contributor who made this excision is overlooking the connection between reliable sources and notability. An interview broadcast on nation-wide TV is a strong notability factor, even if we listen to the interview, and don't find anything he said was worth summarizing here. Being interviewed means professional journalists concluded he had established the journalist's idea of notability. Sure, someone should have listened to that interview, and summarized what he said. The contributor who made that excision could have done that, placed a tag on the paragraph, to get someone else to do it.

I reverted this excision. Geo Swan (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019

Tomypelegrin (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add his birth date

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 14:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Million Edits And 35,000 Articles....How?

This listing cannot be true! Mathematics states this! For this to be true (forgetting the 35 thousand articles supposedly written) it would mean, if taken from the registration date of Wikipedia as a domain, that this person edited an article every three minutes, for 18 years without sleep, food, work, talking....or anything else?

Non stop for 18 years....Every 3 minutes, twenty four seven, 365.

Really?

How?17:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)80.47.27.160 (talk)

You underestimated Steven - he did it in 13 years, beginning in 2006.--Maxaxax (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At times, editors edit much faster than one edit every three minutes. It's not uncommon for editors to make multiple edits per minute, either using semi-automated tools (scripts) or even by hand. I think there's a "speed limit" but I'm not sure what it is. I've always thought that "speed editing" should be explained somehow in the article, but I'm not sure there are any reliable sources that explain it. Leviv ich 17:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it says 35,000 articles written, it's wrong. If it says, edits to that number of articles, it can be right. You add a category, - that's an edit. You remove it and replace it by a better one, that's perhaps two more. Adding "category:20th-century singer to 300 articles can be fast, I'd guess you can do 5 per minute. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda. Says over 35,000 articles created. Does this mean redirects are counted? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects, page moves, categories, all count as new articles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the most recent 500. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I bet the number of non-redirect, non-move, non-category, non-whatever, "real" articles created is still astounding. (To me, any number of article creations that ends in multiple zeros is astounding.) The CBS article that cites the 35k number doesn't seem to capture the nuance. Do we know of an accurate way to determine the number? (xtools is no help.) Leviv ich 19:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 500 most recent, 110 seem to be "real articles", in roughly 3 months. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but this 3 minutes is all day, every day, all year, for 18 years....then you have the 35000 articles? I dont know about speed editing? What is this that you just put a comma in somewhere? And to use scripts to edit posts means that you use a predetermined stance, which thus means that you do not research anything new and science, on a daily basis, learns more. There is something very wrong with this article.80.47.27.160 (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting like fixing commas and other punctuation, yes, but also adding/removing categories, links, working with templates, and many other things can be done with WP:ASSISTed editing tools, such as WP:AWB. Wikipedia is transparent, so you can take a look at each one of the three million+ edits at Special:Contribs/Ser Amantio di Nicolao and see for yourself what the edits are, what tools (if any) were used, when they were made and how frequently, etc. You can also filter that list to show new page creations only. Leviv ich 18:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, now I comprehend. So 35000 articles were not written just the word article has been redefined. And three million edits were not made by a human, just a bit of script....so a computer did it. Ya for the human race :( 80.47.27.160 (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" It's not uncommon for editors to make multiple edits per minute,"

It shouldn't count. I suspect some people make an "editing race", and really I don't like it. It's not even that I don't like it, it's that it's not beneficial.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.47.27.160 (talk • contribs)

It's not a great metric, but it is what is available. Feel free to come up with a better one which works as easily. It would be really interesting to know where the big content contributions are coming from, but how do we measure them? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fame

It's very good, but starification of the contributors is absurd.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk • contribs)

Starification is absurd in most cases, this one no more than average. He did something remarkable, people remarked, it got written up on Wikipedia. Standard operating procedure. It would be interesting to get a more accurate and specific breakdown of the work, simply because it is a bit extreme. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit #1000000000

As we know it, he made the Edit number 1000000000 to Wikipedia. This must be mentioned in the article. MarioJump83! 01:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for RSs to mention that (as will happen soon). Due to WP:WINARS and WP:PRIMARY, I think Special:Diff/1000000000 can't be used as a source; after all it is a BLP. We'll get a story soon on this though somewhere in an RS. JavaHurricane 05:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. MarioJump83! 11:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four millionth edit

When did he reach four million? I've added February, 2021, on the page as 'by...', but that's likely not the exact month. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be more clear about what is an "edit" and an "article" in the sense used here

Per Wiktionary, an edit is "a change to the text of a document". A typical reader of Steven Pruitt, will take "highest number of edits" as meaning edits to article text. Likewise to a typical reader, an article is "a piece of nonfictional writing such as a ... encyclopedia, etc." and will take "created more than 34,000 Wikipedia articles" as he's been cranking out more than six new content articles per day year after year. But a large portion of these created articles and edits are redirects, page moves, categories, etc. I suggest that a little more context be given here. --Cornellier (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth

2601:14a:700:d2f0:f8d0:cd7b:b584:267c recently updated Pruitt's date of birth to April 17, 1984. I did a causal search and saw some sources that cited this date, but none that would meet WP:SOURCE for living persons. Do we have any references to back this up? The user posted the date in strange format, so I updated it to meet proper MOS:DATEFORMAT but wanted to see if anyone had any information or advice on how to handle his date of birth. Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedialuva: Maybe ask him if this is his correct birthday? - Falcon talk 06:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can ask him. And I'm sure he'll oblige. But he's not WP:RS, is he? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He does say that it is his birthday on his userpage, but the userpage isn't a good source for a BLP, so I've removed the birthday from the article per WP:BLPPRIMARY. JavaHurricane 08:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JavaHurricane: I disagree. His username (preferable a permalink of it in external-link format) can be cited as an WP:ABOUTSELF claim, much like we regularly cite people's tweets for DOB. It isn't BLPPRIMARY that controls here, but rather WP:BLPSELFPUB, which incorporates ABOUTSELF. I don't think there's a "reasonable doubt as to [Pruitt's claimed birthday's] authenticity", so I don't see an issue. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can add it back if you think so, Tamzin. I have no strong feelings either way. JavaHurricane 10:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to Peter Francisco

There is nothing tying Pruitt to Peter Francisco besides one line that he said himself in an article. I don't think that this qualifies as a proper source under wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.82.28 (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Virginia article

Thanks, Steven, for mentioning Women in Red in "Time Magazine Named Steven Pruitt One of the Most Influential People on the Internet–Just For His Wikipedia Edits". Your constant support helps to publicize the project and encourage new participants. With every new article about you, we learn a little more, including on this occasion your date of birth! Thanks also for adding thousands of wikiproject talkpage tags to articles related to Women in Business as a basis for our focus in January. Most of them are certainly relevant and useful but I've de-tagged those on fictional characters. I think it would have been confusing to keep them, especially as quite a few of them had reached GA status. It might have looked as if women's greatest achievement in business was in fictitious soap operas. I saw that some time back you also covered Women in Music. Not surprisingly, the vast majority are related to pop. For me, it would have been more useful if you had focused on classical music (which is also a wikiproject).--Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of articles definition

A lot of other people have mentioned this on the talk page, but we really should specify that articles include redirects and page moves. If I hadn't checked the talk page, I would have left this article thinking someone actually created 35,000 full text articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.175.138 (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update his edit counter, or put 4.4m+ edits?

I found a reference that leads to the source to verify his edit count. It says 4.4m, but I don't know whether to change it to 4.6m or say 4.4m+ or over 4.4m.

Sheep (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attention

As per BLP, the subject's parents that are "non notable" should be removed from the Infobox. Also an addition could be made in the relatives parameter for his great great grandfather Peter Francisco. Rejoy2003(talk) 07:03, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add his user page in hatnote?

I made the mistake of typing "Ser Amantio di Nicolao" a couple of times before while trying to find his talk page, and I'm sure people made the same mistake that I did. Wouldn't it be nice to add For Steven Pruitt's user page, see User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao.? Waterard water?(talk | contribs) 03:39, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September Edit

@MrOllie, I did minor edit and please approve, if it is not under the WP policy Rakish (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to do with your edits here. Stop @mentioning me on random talk pages. MrOllie (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie Alright, I initially assumed you were responsible for overseeing all new edits. Could you please guide me on how to confirm whether my edit has been approved? Rakish (talk) 05:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notability???

Not sure this page qualifies under the "notability guidelines"..seems to be a double tier standard though when it comes to one of their own🤔🙄... 2A00:23EE:1158:7EE3:E27F:6B93:11DA:DE53 (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The References section begs to differ with you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the article?🤔🙄 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@2A00:23EE:1158:7EE3:E27F:6B93:11DA:DE53 "Pruitt was named as one of the 25 most important influencers on the Internet by Time magazine in 2017." Vincent-vst🚀 (talk) 11:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Steven_Pruitt"