Talk:Donaldson Scholarship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I removed the list of scholarship recipients, which is not encyclopedic. The statistics table can probably go too. —Quarl (talk) 2006-11-23 00:36Z
- 24.81.58.52 (talk • contribs) keeps adding the list back. Pending comment I'm going to remove it again. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-03 20:06Z
- I have to agree with 24.81.58.52 (talk • contribs), there is no reason to remove the list of recipients. The whole point of the scholarship is to recognize young journalists with potential and so I started to list the recipients to show where people came from and where some of them ended up eventally. That's something you can't get with just a link to a website. Plus other major scholarships have the names of at least some of their recipients, why is this any different? My vote is to keep the list up there. —QueenBee2 2006-12-03 22:16
- I don't know if all the names should be up there, but I find it really interesting that one of the former winners is the managing editor of The Walrus and another used to host Street Cents. I think that stuff is certainly encyclpedic and should stay up there. So don't get rid of the list entirely -- NewsNut
Thanks for commenting. I won't revert back right now, but I still think having the entire list ruins the article. Naming just a handful is acceptable. P.S. use ~~~~ to sign (to both of you). —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-04 08:52Z
- Thanks for the tip on the signing, I don't discuss stuff a lot so I'm not used to it. My point is that you can't have a page on a major award without naming winners in some form or another. It is a major scholarship after all. I think that if you have a real big objection to naming all of them then how about the notable ones and the current ones? I also think that the current winners should be on there too. It's a big thing at the CBC and people make a big deal about the current ones. I think it should be treated the same as other topics that have a fixed number of spots that are changed annually, like the York Federation of Students or the Carleton University Students' Association, or any one of a number of articles that are about the same type of thing. Especially this one because the number of recipients per year is very low and because the scholarship is very prestigious. If I had my way they'd all be up there because then people could fill in the blanks beside names and see what these journalists with great "potential" actually went on to do. But I see your point of view, this isn't the Academy Awards or anthing like that where all the winners are up there. I still think at the least it should have current and notable winners.—QueenBee2 09:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about this topic, but I think it's really crummy that one person thinks he can delete an entire section that many people have worked on and contributed to. No one else before Quarl had an objection to it and just because he thinks he's right he thinks he can just get rid of it altogether? That ain't right, and no one person should have the arrogance to think he has the right to take a machete to any article after so many people have worked on it; just because he doesn't think it's "enyclopedic?" Whatever that means. It's a crummy thing to do. I say keep the whole section the way it was, if anything because it makes the article more "encyclopedic".—autobot554 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Please be civil. I announced it on the talk page. This is the way Wikipedia works. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-04 19:36Z
Part of the present value of any award is implicit in what the past winners have accomplished since receiving it. By including some details about the winners of the Donaldson Scholarship, the article serves to highlight what the award means. Insiders know that it's an important award, but journalism students don't. And that's the audience. Keep the list. JTBurman 22:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, I agree. (BTW, I would say the audience is people not necessarily even in the journalism industry.) What about the past recipients who have accomplished (apparently) nothing? —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:17Z
- I wouldn't say that they've accomplished nothing. I would say that the vast majority of them do very well in their careers in journalism, much of their success owed to the award. Most people become television producers, and very successful producers at that. The problem is that producers don't necessarily have their exploits listed on the web or anywhere else public. Reporters are fairly well known and that's why their accomplishments are filled out. But that doesn't mean the non-reporter recipients don't end up very successful. And that's part of why I want to leave the list up, to recognize those who aren't publicized as reporters, which is the whole point of Wikipedia (right?), to be a people's encyclopedia and not just be based on what is found on the web. I mean this topic is relatively new and just because something isn't beside someone's name doesn't mean they've not accomplished anything in journalism.—QueenBee2 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with QueenBee2, what JTBurman did (filling out stuff beside the name) is exactly why the list should be kept up. There is a lot of value in keeping the list.–autobot554 06:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that they've accomplished nothing. I would say that the vast majority of them do very well in their careers in journalism, much of their success owed to the award. Most people become television producers, and very successful producers at that. The problem is that producers don't necessarily have their exploits listed on the web or anywhere else public. Reporters are fairly well known and that's why their accomplishments are filled out. But that doesn't mean the non-reporter recipients don't end up very successful. And that's part of why I want to leave the list up, to recognize those who aren't publicized as reporters, which is the whole point of Wikipedia (right?), to be a people's encyclopedia and not just be based on what is found on the web. I mean this topic is relatively new and just because something isn't beside someone's name doesn't mean they've not accomplished anything in journalism.—QueenBee2 05:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point about the inherent bias towards public-facing people; if this is a work in progress then reporters' accomplishments are probably filled out first; the others could also be notable. If they are all notable, that would be justification for including the entire list. Just remember that there are guidelines for notability and Wikipedia also requires verifiability of all content. If someone is a television producer, that information should only be included if it can be verified through reliable sources (e.g. via the official website or a publication). Also, just to clarify: it is a common misconception, but recognition is not the whole point of Wikipedia, in fact hundreds of pages are deleted every day whose sole purpose was to recognize a non-notable person. See also Wikipedia is not a directory. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 23:45Z
- Just to be clear, I didn't mean that recognition was the whole point of wikipedia, I meant that the point of wikipedia was to be a people's encyclopedia. Secondly I'd like to say that the purpose of this topic is not to showcase or recognize the people who won the scholarship, it's to say what the scholarship is and is about ... and part of that is listing people who've won it in the past. People need not be "notable" (according to your defintion) to be on a wikipedia page - there are tons of examples of that.—QueenBee2 07:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what all the fuss is about. I say just keep the list. 137.82.8.59 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
