Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electracy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, default to keep. Yes there were SPAs but also enough keeps from established users to muddy the consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electracy

Electracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Neologism. Retroactive objection to PROD. ➥the Epopt 04:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See this edit to the talk page for further evidence of original research, conflict of interest, and self-referentiality: As the person who introduced the term "electracy" I found it helpful, when people asked me for a quick definition. to point to Wikipedia. ➥the Epopt 20:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no conflict of interest here. I am the one who wrote this entry, not Ulmer, and I did it for the same reason. When preparing to teach a workshop to high school teachers about new media technologies, I turned to Wikipedia for a concise definition of the term and, when I didn't find one, I created the entry myself. This is supposed to be the purpose of the wiki form--collaborative encyclopedia composition. Shortly after creating the entry, I delivered a conference presentation [1] with reference to the term and to the wikipedia entry. And I have recently had an essay accepted for publication in the organization's journal, on Cue [2], in its Winter 2007 issue (forthcoming), in which I reference the term and the wikipedia article as well. A google search on the term yields 22,000+ hits, yet there is no one place to get a concise definition of the term. That was my purpose in writing this entry. Rsmyth 20:30, 6 January 2007 (EST)
To the closing admin: beware of sockpuppets and single-purpose accounts attempting to stack the !vote. ➥the Epopt 21:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
To the closing admin:There is no conspiracy here, no stacking of the vote. This is a forum for community discussion. There is a community of scholars who employ this term and work with the underlying theoretical concepts. Just because some of these scholars, now becoming active in Wikipedia due to the challenge to this entry, have never commented or posted entries or created user pages yet doesn't mean that their input should be invalidated or their identity questioned. i.e. Please do not bite the newcomers. Rsmyth 20:35, 6 January 2007 (EST)


  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
  • Merge into Gregory Ulmer but AfD that page if better refs are not found. CyberAnth 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, nn neologism. MER-C 07:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just delete per nom. Non-notable neologism, self referenced article, and serving only as an vehicle to lend credibility to the author's theories. Ohconfucius 08:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge: Article needs significant work, or merge. Neologism without any references may be deletable, but Neologism that has one or more references just means it is a new term. Atom 13:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ahem, did you read the article and/or the nom? Note that the nominator is an ex-arbitrator. MER-C 12:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The article disagrees with you. You say "It is not a neologism," but the first words of the article are "Electracy is a neologism...." I suggest that this apparent failure to read the article you're expressing an opinion on invalidates that opinion. ➥the Epopt 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • With respect The Epopt, WP does not exclude neologisms. NEO clearly states that they can be included if they conform to the two policies of: OR and verifiable. I personally have seen hundreds, if not thousands of neologisms in WP, it is impractical to say that any neologism should not be in WP. Finicky 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC) (newcomer, not a sockpuppet, if that is what you thought)
  • I want to add too, in case you didn't get my meaning The Epopt. I said the article was not a 'neologism' as per the qualities set out in the POL. Of course I read the article. Finicky 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep IF Edited: I don't understand why the fact that it is a "neologism" is such a problem. "Blog" is a neologism but doesn't say that it is a neologism in the article. Should we remove "Blog" because it is a neologism? The article can easily be edited to remove the term neologism if that is the problem. Finicky's comment is not invalidated because she makes the point that it is not original research and it is verifiable. Citations can be added to show that the term has been used by writers other than the author. The entry itself cites a source published by a reliable publisher as well as other scholarly work mentioning the term. For this reason, it is also "verifiable." Do a google search on electracy and you get 22,000+ hits, demonstrating its broad usage. Rsmyth 15:20, 6 January 2007 (EST)
  • Keep: The new knowledge that Ulmer and others have been developing on this topic has wide application and value. Published references can be documented of its usage. C dog taylor 15:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: Citations of peer reviewed pubications with reference to topic. User:John Craig Freeman 3:21, 6 January 2007.

Rhizomes, Place and the Electrate Situation? [3].

2004 John Craig Freeman, chapter 20 "Imaging Florida: A Model Interdisciplinary Collaboration by the Florida Research Ensemble", Edited by James Inman, Electronic Collaboration in the Humanities: Issues and Options. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mahwah, New Jersey.

July 2003 Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, William Tilson and John Craig Freeman, "Image Emergency: A Psychogeography of Miami," Prague Literary Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, p. 17.

2003 Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, William Tilson and John Craig Freeman, "Image Emergency: A Psychogeography of Miami," Leonardo, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 197 - 198.

2002 Florida Research Ensemble: Gregory Ulmer, William Tilson, John Craig Freeman, Barbara Jo Revelle, and Will Pappenheimer, "Miami Miatre; mapping the virtual city (a preview)," Journal of Visual Culture, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 341 - 357.

1999 Florida Research Ensemble: Gregory Ulmer, Barbara Jo Revelle, Gordon Bleach and John Craig Freeman, "Imaging Florida: A Research Initiative conducted by the Florida Research Ensemble", Exposure, Vol. 32, No. 1. pp. 35 - 43.

  • note that everything from "Keep: Citations of peer reviewed pubications..." through the citations to this point was added by User:72.209.71.192, despite the manually created signature "User:John Craig Freeman 3:21, 6 January 2007" — "John Craig Freeman" is not a registered user, and has made no contributions whatsoever, not even the above. ➥the Epopt 21:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: "Electracy," like Derrida's "differance" or Aristotle's "entelechy," began as a neologism or coinage but has been adopted by other scholars (eg Andrew Morrison, in the book he edite with Gunnar Liestol for MIT Press in 2003, Digital Media Revisited. My seminar at the European Graduate school (www.egs.edu) has as its title "issues in electracy (assigned not by me but by the Dean, Wolfgang Schirmacher. G. Ulmer

g —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.71.192 (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Keep: Another peer-reviewed source that discusses electracy: Sarah J. Arroyo, "Playing to the Tune of Electracy: From Post-Process to a Pedagogy Otherwise," JAC 25:4 (2005): pp. 683-715. csteen — csteen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete insufficient sources that discuess the usage of the term "electracy" itself, as required by WP:NEO, note also possible conflict of interest concerns.-- danntm T C 06:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Question: This is a general question as I'm still learning the process here. If an article is deleted according to certain conditions set out here, what is the process of getting the article submitted again, with changes made? In other words, the way an article is worded in the initial version does not necessarily mean the content is inadmissable. Should the article be changed whilst it is being debated or after? Let me know if I'm supposed to post these query elsewhere. Thanks. Finicky 10:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • NOW is the time to improve the article if possible. Otherwise, move it to userspace, improve it there, and repost. CyberAnth 10:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete In over 25 years of IT, I have never come across this term, and would see that terms such as digital divide and digerati can be used in appropriate ways to convey the concepts described here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ringbark (talk •

contribs) 20:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

It is not a term from the IT world but the humanities and literary theory. Do a search in Amazon for "electracy" and find at least 15 printed books (only one of which by Ulmer) that reference the term with such titles as Electronic Collaboration in the Humanities; ICT, Pedagogy, and the Curriculum; Critical Power Tools; and E-Crit: Digital Media, Critical Theory, and the Humanities. This should be considered in light of the claims that this is "original research." Rsmyth 02:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'm not in favor of such a vague sounding word to describe electronic media literacy, but there doesn't seem to be an alternative word with a scope as broad as this. Oicumayberight 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Keep" I can't say I like the word myself, but that is not the criterion. That someone hasn't seen it in the past 20 yrs not show that it isnt notable today.DGG 05:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This term is not a neologism anymore it is broadly used and has made a significant understanding to literacy studies. it's notable. --Buridan 15:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete nn Ry Jones 17:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: I agree that perhaps the article requires some editing or alteration, but I feel that the term is an important one as there is no other term that carries the same connotations as this. I have come to use it in my own work and the arguments against it's status as a neologism are moot, in my opinion, considering that all words were at one time neologisms until they became widely used. That someone has not come across this word in the past 25 years is a ludicrous argument considering that 25 years ago, the word "blog" did not exist either, but no one questions its validity.
  • Keep Not just "blog" - "wiki" didn't exist either. This discussion about neologisms is really putting me off using wikipedia and recommending it to my students. I want an up-to-date encyclopedia, not one which is embedded in old-fashioned thinking. Who makes these decisions about neologisms? How well read are they? Which disciplines do they come from? The first time I heard the term electracy was 1999. It is commonly used in the digital humanities. I will watch this discussion with interest because if electracy goes, so, probably, will I. Sunlight40 08:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per all of the above. Random the Scrambled (?)(Vandalism and other nonsense!) 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.