Talk:Danah Boyd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. Biography Portal Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group. This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. Pennsylvania Portal Danah Boyd is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Danah Boyd, has edited Wikipedia as Zephoria (talk · contribs)

Archives

2006 archives

Contents 1 Requested move 1.1 Survey 1.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 1.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 2 Apr 8 RFC 3 Caps 4 A Related Philosophical Issue 5 Summary 6 Mediation 7 Corrections 8 Somewhat futile at this point, but

[edit] Requested move

WP:BLP covers contentious information about the subject, and by my reading of that page, capitalising someone's name according to the usual rules of grammar does not constitute a contentious stance. The subject would not win a libel case against a newspaper just because they wrote her name with capital letters, for instance. Given that WP:BLP doesn't apply to this facet of the article, the Manual of Style can, and does. We therefore follow other reliable sources (Elonka lists a few) and keep the name capitalised. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apr 8 RFC

• Coming in off of the RFC (posted on April 8), my opinion: danah boyd's name is frequently used in lowercase as well as in first-capped mixed case. Since both variants appear in the published record, danah boyd's own statements about her name are helpful; they're certainly not self-serving and they don't present verifiability/NOR problems since there is significant evidence in the published record that she goes by lowercase d-b. This is a BLP issue, since it is principally about identities. BLP makes clear that things which reflect on core identities (religious beliefs, sexual orientation) should rely on the individual's self-identification. For whatever reason danah boyd has chosen to lowercase her name, that should be respected as much as any other core identity issue -- there is little that is more core as an identity than one's name. (The "it's not defamatory" is not a good reason: religious faith is not defamatory, and sexual orientation is not necessarily defamatory either. So "defamation" is clearly not the threshold.) --lquilter 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think Boyd's printed name here should reflect her publications, and the media's representation of her name. K.d.lang has a long history both of performing and being billed as k.d.lang, and of the media referring to her as k.d.lang. Therefore her listing can rightly refer to her as k.d.lang. Such is not the case here. This is less a spelling issue and more of a typesetting one. If Boyd decided that she wanted her name written in green ink, she could make all the same arguments she has made earlier, and I still don't think Wikipedia should refer to her as danah boyd. Her personal wishes should not come into play on this discussion. This has to do with previously published references, and currently accepted practices. She is published under the name "Danah Boyd" in several media sources. I don't think it violates any guidelines to capitalize her name according to the standards of published third-party sources. Andyparkerson 10:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• if she legally changed her name to "danah boyd" then that should be the article's title. legal accuracy trumps MOS. Not a dog 01:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• The important references we have for her, the New York Times [1] and the Financial Times,[2] both use Danah Boyd. Therefore, it seems clear the mainstream media, and presumably the world, usually refers to her this way. So should we. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • your subjective claims that it "seems clear" and "presumably the world" are not good grounds for policy decisions, IMO Not a dog 16:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That's pretty much what Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) is all about, actually. Note the part where it says "Wikipedia is not a place to advocate a title change in order to reflect recent scholarship. The articles themselves reflect recent scholarship but the titles should represent common usage." So what that means is you can put a couple of sentences there that on her site she claims that she got some kind of papers (note that she doesn't specify it was a legal name change) that use the lower case form. But the article title should be the mixed case form. See, for example, National Association of Realtors, which makes a big deal out of writing REALTOR all over the place - but we don't, because most people don't. See Jimmy Carter, for a far more important person - his name is James, but since the world calls him Jimmy, so do we. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
      • FWIW, she indicated here that it is legally lower-case. And my point is that just becuase the NY Times uses upper case isn't sufficient evidence for you to claim that "presumably the world" does too. Not a dog 17:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia should follow the lead of major published sources, per WP:V. Right now those sources use "Danah Boyd." If the majority of third-party sources start printing her name lowercase, then Wikipedia can follow that example. But so far I'm not seeing it. If there are third-party sources which use the lowercase version of her name, please provide them. --Elonka 19:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
          • even if the living subject herself states those "leading" third party sources are incorrect? why must wikipedia perpetuate their error? Not a dog 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
            • One might also argue that the editors of these sources merely decide to stick with basic grammar rules indiscriminately (in this case first letter capitalizing proper nouns), so that neither individual people, nor companies or brands get to stand out in any special way, as these publications write about them, not for them. I'd say this is the most WP:NPOV compliant approach possible, when it comes to typesetting. - Cyrus XIII 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
              • One might argue that (do you?), but I think they'd be wrong. The fact of the matter is "Danah Boyd" is not her name, "danah boyd" is. Do we need to ask her to produce the legal name-change documentation?? Not a dog 21:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                • No, just as Sony does not have to provide us with the paperwork which says that they trademarked the name of their latest home console in all-caps - apart from mentioning it, it's just not relevant to us a as mature, descriptive publication. - Cyrus XIII 22:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Well, I wish you luck, then, getting k.d. lang and other articles renamed as well. Not a dog 23:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is danah. My birth certificate says DANAH MICHELE BOYD - all birth certificates and driver's licenses in the United States are fully capitalized. My signature on all official documents is lower-cased. My name on my diplomas is lower-cased. My name on all of my own publication is lower-cased. There are plenty of journalists who have chosen to capitalize my name and quite a few who have called me "Dana Boyd" (lacking the 'h' in my first name), but this does not reflect accuracy. I find it peculiar that it is desirable to reproduce inaccuracies from news media simply because they are common. If you look at any of my publications in print, you'll find that my name is always lower-cased. Why wouldn't you default to the capitalization of my articles and suggest that the New York Times chooses to capitalize her name rather than the other way around? Why is the NYTimes by default more accurate in the capitalization of my name than I am when I write my own articles? When my book comes out with my name in lower-case, will the press' capitalization still trump my own capitalization? - zephoria 21:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Capitalization is and always has been a style issue. D is the same letter as d. No matter how many publications one has, nor how many "documents" they can have produced with their desired spelling, no one can change the rules of English. If you want just the name of the article changed because of a "common name", I don't have a problem with that, but in practice that would only change the b since the D is required to be capital by technical limitation (at least in the URL) and I think that looks bad. Also, I don't know why we'd ever use signatures for spelling or capitalization; my signature doesn't even contain all the letters of my name. I could sign a triangle for all it matters, but it wouldn't mean I'd have a right to make Wikipedia refer to me as "Δ". -- Renesis (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The lowercased-spelling of the name is already in the lead paragraph of the article (danah boyd). I see no need to also change the page title. Wikipedia guidelines are clear that the page title should be that name which is in most common use. And yes, that means that if all newspapers routinely spelled Boyd's name as "Dana," then that's what we'd use on the Wikipedia article title. We go by the most common spelling that a user would type into a search engine, and as such, we follow the lead of outside sources. For examples of other cases where an article title name does not match an individual's precise legal name, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Examples. --Elonka 19:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The title of this article should be the verifiably correct name of the subject of the article; the capitalized version is verifiably incorrect, so I really wonder how there's an issue here. Style guidelines do not trump accuracy. Ubernostrum 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Additionally, the lead paragraph says the subject is "also known as" "danah boyd". It's inexcusable for a style guide to overrule factual accuracy to the extent that someone has to be "also known as" their own legal name. WP:IAR is the solution for the style guide's proscriptions here, because the style guide is getting in the way of the factual accuracy of the article. Ubernostrum 20:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • That seems a bit extreme to me. I think anybody reasonable can see the theory behind the common names policy. If there is something to be disagreed upon, we use the most common argument. However, if something is factually verifiable, such as the spelling of a name, and many sources seem to get the spelling wrong (for whatever reason), then it would be ridiculously obsessive of us to ignore the fact. Again, this doesn't fall under "spelling" since the letters are the same, but that is what has landed us in this muddy water. -- Renesis (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I agree. It cannot be held against a publication (i.e. a newspaper) to do away with stylized typography in order to give each subject an equal weight (of sorts) within the typesetting. But the missing 'h' is just sloppy editing. - Cyrus XIII 09:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I also recommend that we add a statement saying that the name change information is sourced from Boyd's website. That disclaimer was in an earlier version, but got removed somewhere along the line. In other words, say, "According to Boyd's website..." Personally, I'm inclined to take anything from Boyd's website with a grain of salt, as Boyd's area of research is social networking, and for all we know this is some grand experiment on how the rules can be pushed. Yes, I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but I'd also point out that Boyd's site indicates that she experimented with the last name of "Beard." Beard is actually a slang term meaning "fake" or "hidden." We have no other source for that name than her own site. That, plus the fact that Boyd has used her blog to try and encourage her fans to pressure Wikipedia on this issue, make me encourage extreme caution as to how much we rely on Boyd's website as a source here. --Elonka 18:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Said disclaimer has now been re-implemented. Regarding good faith, well, I don't know about you guys, but my ability to assume good faith rarely reaches beyond my fellow editors and naturally, Zephoria does not register as such in the given context. Hence it all comes down to maintaining verifiability and a NPOV, coupled with a healthy dose of skepticism. - Cyrus XIII 23:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Ouch. I did not "experiment" with the last name Beard. When my mother remarried, we changed our names to our stepfather's name; I was a child. You do not have to take my web documentation of this as "fact" - it is public record in York, Pennsylvania. While I cannot say many nice things about my ex-stepfather, I find it extremely offensive that you are suggesting that his family name is slang for fake or hidden. What value does that attack serve in this discussion? - zephoria 21:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

Please note that the MoS already covers this sort of thing. k.d. lang. e.e. cummings. catherine yronwode.

{{lowercase|title}} exists for a reason. DS 02:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and that specific part of the MoS clearly states that the article title should reflect the majority of outside sources; that would be standard English capitalization in this case. Speaking of guidelines and policies, kindly take a look at WP:3RR. - Cyrus XIII 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm something of a newcomer to this particular debate, but as I see it other Wikipedia policies and guidelines trump MoS in this case. If mainstream news sources are verifiably inaccurate, then Wikipedia should not propagate their inaccuracies; instead, Wikipedia should provide verifiably accurate information from reliable sources.

In this case, danah has indicated that her name is legally lower-cased, and writings on her site indicate that this is an issue that's important to her; that brings WP:BLP into play, both as an issue of respect for the subject of a living person and as an issue of verifiability -- when the information provided by an article's subject is not "unduly self-serving", it is permissible to use that person as a source for the article. Furthermore, academic sources (the University of California, and various papers authored by or citing danah) list her as "danah boyd", not "Danah Boyd", and danah has mentioned that capitalization is not the only mistake news sources have made in publishing her name, which casts further doubt on the accuracy and verifiability of the news sources which have been cited to support the capitalized name.

Given the above, I think a combination of BLP and WP:IAR (a rule -- in this case the MoS -- is getting in the way of improving Wikipedia) are sufficient to justify 1) moving this article to "Danah boyd", with a redirect from "Danah Boyd" to aid searching; 2) Adding a note that the title of the article is properly lower-cased; and 3) removing the "also known as danah boyd" and converting all mentions of her name in the article to lower-case. Ubernostrum 03:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering the articles uses "E. E. Cummings" through, that is not eactly the most compelling example... Circeus 03:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Cummings was a mistake on my part. However, consider the many proper names in [[Category:Wikipedia articles that should not have a capitalised title]]. Anyway, I interfered in this debate because the last few times I stepped in and overruled all debate, it worked out just fine. This time, it seems to be a bit more acrimonious, so I'm stepping back out. Settle it amongst yourselves. DS 13:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Try {{lowercase}}, maybe? (and really, I'm not coming back to this dispute.) DS 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

We've already discussed this extensively. Wikipedia follows the lead of outside reliable sources. If New York Times and television news spell the name "Danah Boyd", that's how we spell it too. If Boyd wants to get the Wikipedia article changed, talk to the Times and MSNBC first. If they change, we'll change. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. As it is, we've already got the alternate spelling of her name in the lead paragraph, which is plenty. I'm really having trouble understanding why people are so insistent that the article title be changed as well. --Elonka 18:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I'd appreciate a reply to my concerns above about MoS being trumped by other Wikipedia policies. Additionally, the University of California and forty-odd academic citations I was able to find in a quick search use "danah boyd", so please avoid selectivity in your counting of the "majority" of sources. And please do not reference NOR when others are making reference to reliable sources; NOR does not apply to such situations.

As for the "insistence", it's a simple case of accuracy: danah's name is verifiably lower-cased. Propagating an inaccurate version for sake of a style guide is a clear-cut violation of both WP:V and WP:BLP. Ubernostrum 00:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially since this is really close to a WP:MOS-TM issue. The folks at REALTOR® know how they want to present their name, just as Ms. boyd knows how she wants to present hers. However, at Wikipedia, neither are shown favor, and we resort to a cultural-normal capitalization scheme. Neier 00:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of violating WP:DNFTT... Capitalizing the name is neither a WP:BLP violation nor a WP:V violation. See AnonEMouse's post above for links to articles in the New York Times and Financial Times which capitalized her name. That's plenty verifiable per WP:V, and the New York Times is about as high quality a reference as you can get. As for WP:BLP, its main thrust is to prevent negative information from going into a biography of a living person. I see no reasoning that having Boyd's name capitalized is causing any negative impact, aside from the fact that She-who-is-also-known-as-Boyd doesn't like it. And again, the lowercase version of the name is included in the lead paragraph. I can't see as any reasonable reader of the Wikipedia article would be confused, and I can't see that changing the article title to lowercase would provide any benefit. --Elonka 19:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is a conflict of sources: the NYT and FT spelled it "Danah Boyd", yes, as did other sources. But yet other sources which Wikipedia considers to be reliable (public institutions and academic citations) spell it "danah boyd". Now, one of these is right and one of these is wrong -- they can't both be "the" correct version. danah has indicated that her name is legally lower-cased, and pointed to other mistakes made by mainstream news sources in citing/identifying her; this calls the reliability of the NYT and FT articles into question. Furthermore, BLP states that the subject of the article can be used as a source when the information provided is not "unduly self-serving" and there is no reasonable doubt that the information truly is coming from the subject. Comments on the RFC above have already noted that this information is not "unduly self-serving", and there is no reasonable doubt as to whether danah is the one providing this information, which means that we can use danah herself as a source for this. I don't think anyone would argue that the New York Times -- in the matter of the correct spelling of the name of the person who is the subject of this article -- is a more reliable source than danah herself, which means that the most reliable source available to us (backed up by secondary sources in the form of the University of California and academic citations) verifies "danah boyd" as the correct version and refutes "Danah Boyd" as incorrect. Thus, per WP:V, the article should be moved and edited to reflect that, as I've proposed above.

And I'll also say something about BLP here, because I believe there is a BLP issue: danah's gone to the trouble of writing an essay explaining why she changed her name to lower-case, and used fairly strong terms: "that's exactly it - it's my name and i should be able to frame it as i see fit, as my adjective, not someone else's. Why must it follow some New York Times standard guide for naming? " This moves the issue squarely into BLP territory, both as a matter of "get the article right" and as a matter of approaching article subjects "with compassion, grace and understanding". Right now we're doing neither: we're getting the article wrong, and there have been comments which have been arguably disrespectful of her -- for example, one revert message left by a Wikipedia editor took pains to dismiss the spelling issue as danah's "preference", with quotes for emphasis. If that's not a BLP problem (especially with Wikipedia's recent increase in attention given to the wishes of living persons covered by articles -- see the deletions of Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt, for example), I don't know what is.

Also, please don't throw the "don't feed the troll" policy at me -- remember to assume good faith, even and especially when someone's disagreeing with you. Ubernostrum 19:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we please stop calling capitalization spelling? It is not, and it never will be. A D is a d is a d is a D is a D. Repeat that if you need to. The point is, until many third party sources cite her with a different style (and places to which she submitted her own name such as educational institutions, for obvious reasons, don't count), we will not use that style. The End. A name is a proper noun. A name is also case insensitive. Proper nouns are thus capitalized, in English. That's just the way it is. -- Renesis (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's call it capitalization. Let's also call me exasperated, because I've been saying now for days that this is not a matter of style, it's a matter of fact: there is a person who is the subject of this article, and whose name is verifiably either "Danah Boyd" or "danah boyd". Wikipedia should take steps to find the most reliable sources available in determining which version is correct, and then use that version, and I've presented arguments which try to do just that, but those arguments have been effectively dismissed out of hand. If there is truly not an issue of fact here, and it truly is only an issue of style, please show me why that is. Let's also be very careful about throwing out entire classes of sources in the heat of a debate: it's not at all obvious to me that we should throw out anything she's put her name on, because her work goes through peer-review processes which can and should catch errors, and because her university isn't likely to have accepted her without doing some checking up to make sure she was who she said she was (if nothing else, I imagine that universities like to be able to collect tuition and pay necessary employment taxes, two things which requires them to verify someone's legal identity). Ubernostrum 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since we all seem to be talking past each other here, I've posted a quick summary and link back here on the BLP noticeboard; perhaps fresh eyes will help resolve this. Ubernostrum 23:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus dropped the BLP tag, but I'm still maintaining there's a BLP issue here if we view the name as a matter of fact. danah has indicated that her name is legally lower-cased; a person's legal name either is some string of characters or isn't that string of characters, so we've got a question of fact here. And BLP says to "get the article right", not to "get the article right unless the facts are unconventional", not to "get the article right unless the facts disagree with Wikipedia's manual of style", etc. Either her legal name is "danah boyd", or it's not. If it is "danah boyd", then it should be verifiable -- and, indeed, we have a primary source and some secondary sources which say "danah boyd" is the name of the subject of this article. And if it's verifiable that "danah boyd" is the name of the subject of this article, then titling it "Danah Boyd", presenting the name throughout as "Danah Boyd" and giving her legal name as "also known as" would violate BLP's prescription to get the article right and to supply verifiable facts about the subject.

Also, in previous discussions, the response from some editors has been that danah (or perhaps someone else) should lobby the NYT, etc. to issue corrections, at which point Wikipedia might consider following their lead (though it's still not clear that these editors would -- the "get mainstream media to change" angle has been a minor thread). BLP places on Wikipedia the responsibility to get it right; it does not place on subjects the responsibility to obsessively police what others say about them.

And again I'll point back to WP:IAR, which I brought up when I first dove into this issue: there's a very good argument that presenting the subject's legal name would improve Wikipedia by adding relevant verifiable information to the article. WP:NAME is getting in the way of that improvement, so even if it's decided that style would otherwise trump substance, the naming convention should be ignored for this article per IAR. Ubernostrum 02:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And just for kicks: Reliability of Wikipedia cites an article by danah, and attributes it to "Danah Boyd", in contradiction to the cited article. Can we get a WP:IRONY set up? Ubernostrum 02:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to wikilawyer, she acknowledged that her legal name is DANAH MICHELE BOYD in caps on her license, birth certificate, etc; and danah boyd is how she chooses to present herself. REALTOR is how the real estate association chooses to present themselves, and WP:MOS-TM is very clear on Wikipedia's stance on that stylistic issue. Governments (apparently?) take no stance towards capitalization (by listing everything in all-caps), and, it seems it is not an issue with the content, but with presentation. WP:BLP addresses content. The various manuals of style address presentation. Neier 04:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, care to address the IAR concern while you're here? Does WP:NAME mean that we should ignore the subject of the article, published work from reliable academic sources, and a notable and reliable public institution which identifies the subject using lower case? Cyrus expressed a concern that BLP is becoming an "all-overriding policy"; is there room for a concern that the MoS is being allowed similar latitude? Also, note that "idiosyncratic" capitalization of a number of trademarks is preserved in their Wikipedia entries, and that the guideline for trademarks specifically calls them out to indicate this; you can't, in fairness, call out REALTOR/realtor without also calling out the counterexamples of iPod, eBay, etc. How far is MoS allowed to degrade an article? Ubernostrum 05:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The invocation of WP:IAR more and more strikes me as a Wikipedia-specific variant of Godwin's Law, that's probably why IAR is precisely the "rule" I've always chosen to ignore - in favor of Wikipedia:Interpret all rules, since that little essay actually helps resolving disputes in cases where the guidelines are not specific enough. The issue we are discussing here however, is addressed fairly clearly by the Manual of Style, so this is not one of those fringe case, which may be solved by out-of-the-box thinking. In short, we may continue this discussion ("Is!"/"Is not!") or the party dissatisfied with the current set of rules we have may put in for changes to them on the relevant talk pages. - Cyrus XIII 10:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, debating the case of a word is not debating the content; it is debating the style. Your other guidelines are all attuned to dealing with subject matter, and not the font/color/case/boldness of the words which make it up. Calling the iPod (which is explicitly noted as an exception in WP:MOS-TM) an iPoop would be a POV content problem. Calling it the ipod would not be. By the same token, registering iPOd or IpoD as a trademark would not work, because again, it is not a new word, but just another way of presenting the already-registered word. While some sources may accede some of their editorial control to the whims of their subjects when it comes to the case of the words involved, the current Wikipedia policy is not one of those places. I agree wholeheartedly with Cyrus, and if the policies are changed, I will reassess my stance. But, today, it seems clear to me. Neier 13:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Cyrus and Neier. Most sources write about her with expected capital letters, so the Manual of Style is quite clear on this. There's no reason to Ignore All Rules with regards to the MoS, as using lowercase names throughout would reduce readability and not add anything to the article and thus not help Wikipedia. Its not like using normal capitalization takes anything away from the informative content of the article (I wholeheartedly disagree that using uppercase disrupts the factual accuracy of the article - the article would still say that she styles her name with lowercase letters after all). So, it seems to me its [the wishes of the subject] vs. [most media sources and readability/practicality]. I don't think the article title at the top of the page is particularly important, but using lowercase letters throughout the article body would be obnoxious and against the MoS. Wickethewok 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to be extremely wary of the MoS in this case. And going by "media sources" is problematic -- it's easy to skew the debate by cherry-picking a couple of big sources and then relying on the fact that 10,000 newspapers syndicate those articles without even having a copyeditor look at them.

Meanwhile there's a notable body of reliable sources which identify her as "danah boyd", and we've had input from her directly and -- I assume since I linked it above -- we've read her essay on why she went through such a level of hassle to have her name changed. If this really is a case of "MoS applies and either overrules everything else, or nothing else applies", then I'd be inclined to take Neier's suggestion about lobbying to change the policy, but I'm concerned that it would be shrugged off. Wikipedia's policies on legally-registered names have some fairly glaring holes which haven't been patched, but there seems to be a fairly adamant group of users/admins who like things as they are, so there's not much encouragement to try to improve things.

I do feel strongly, though, that the current presentation of this article, even if it stays stuck with the MoS-mandated capitalization, is unnecessarily disrespecting its subject with the "also known as" line. She says it's her legal name, and there are plenty of reliable sources using the lowercase presentation, so Wikipedia shouldn't degrade that. Also, if (as some have argued above) lower-casing her on Wikipedia would be unduly confusing to people conducting searches and expecting capitalization, Wikipedia should avoid engendering similar confusion in people who read the article here and then see her essay on her name or see her cited/identified by a more respectful source. Would it at lest be acceptable to get info about the name change higher up in the article and write it a little more neutrally? Ubernostrum 05:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be okay on you going ahead and making an edit to show what you mean? Right now the lowercased-style is in the top line of the article, so I'm not sure how we could "move it up higher"? But if rewriting a couple sentences will lead to a compromise here, I'm open to seeing what you have in mind. --Elonka 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

There's info further down on her dropping various bits of her birth name and picking up the "boyd"; condensing that out into a sentence or two at the beginning of the article might be a better approach. Ideally, the entire name issue would be covered in one sentence. Something like

Danah Michele Boyd (born 1977 Danah Michele Mattas, later changed to danah michele boyd, most commonly identified in mainstream media as Danah Boyd),

It's somewhat long, but has the advantage of covering the whole thing up-front and staying as neutral and encyclopedic as possible within the proscriptions of the naming conventions. I'm still thinking about proposing a change to WP:NAME to allow this sort of thing to be handled more gracefully, though; it's clear from repeated discussion that there are folks other than myself who feel the policy has problems in cases like this. Ubernostrum 07:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the supposedly disrespectful "also knows as" phrasing, but I do not agree that there is any need to differentiate at length between the lowercase and uppercase variants and to point out the preference of the "mainstream media", as this has a slightly judgmental they got it wrong slant to it, that will subsequently fall back on the Wikipedia article. - Cyrus XIII 11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than mainstream media sources, who's been cited as calling her "Danah Boyd"? Pretty much the entire MoS argument has rested on the assertion that mainstream media use "Danah Boyd", and I've repeatedly pointed out other reliable sources which use "danah boyd". Wikipedia needs to be honest about the fact that per policy it's simply repeating what the NYT and FT did, and that per policy it's choosing to ignore an array of sources which do not follow that lead. Ubernostrum 02:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(←) It's not obvious in the least that one can change one's name to lower case, and the only source for this claim is Boyd's weblog entry, where she does not go into the legal details. She changed more than just the capitalization of her name, and I think it is much more likely that legally there is no difference between changing your name to danah michele boyd and changing it to Danah Michele Boyd. Until some independent, reliable source explains the legal aspects of lower case names, we should use due caution in repeating her claims on the matter. We don't even have the name change paperwork from the court, although I suspect it is a public document. Perhaps someone who lives in CA can look it up? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Neier and CBM/Carl are completely right. She is actually the only source that says her name is legally changed to lowercase. Definitely not a reliable third-party source, in this case. Ubernostrum, I find it strange that when it fits your arguments, you are "inclined to be extremely wary of the MoS in this case.", and inclined to disagree with the context of Wikipedia:Verifiability ("And going by "media sources" is problematic..."). These policies are in place for a reason. You can't pick and choose when they help or hurt your case. As many editors have said, this is not a BLP issue. The policies and guidelines we have in place are clear. Let the issue rest. -- Renesis (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP carefully, specifically the sections regarding the use of the subject of the article as a source. Others have commented above that BLP's requirement that the information supplied by the subject not be "unduly self-serving" has been met, and there is no reasonable doubt that the information comes from the subject of the article, so BLP's guidelines would permit using danah as a source. Ubernostrum 02:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Boyd, or someone claiming to be her, says above "My birth certificate says DANAH MICHELE BOYD - all birth certificates and driver's licenses in the United States are fully capitalized." Given that this statement seems to contradict the claim that her name is legally lower case, and the lack of any other evidence that a name can be changed by law to lower case, it seems appropriate to explicitly attribute all claims about the capitalization directly to Boyd. Her weblog, which is clearly trying to persuade, can hardly be viewed on the same footing as a reliable external source. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Most legal forms uppercase everything. If you want to argue from that, legal forms are a reliable source and there are probably far more of them (birth certificates, tax documents, licensing, etc. etc.) with DANAH MICHELE BOYD than there are newspapers which have used "Danah Boyd" -- would you like to move this article to an all-uppercase title, to reflect the commonality (based on counting the number of reliable sources) of that usage? ;) Ubernostrum 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ubernostrum, I apologize for our difference of opinion here, but I feel that using Boyd's website as a source with respect to her claim regarding her name would be unduly self-serving. In fact, it's obvious, given the statements she has made on this talk page that this is the case. -- Renesis (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuinely curious as to how it's self-serving. The vibe that I get from her essay is "I went through a ton of legal hassle to get this changed, and I still get a ton of hassle from people with style guides so I'm going to write this explanation and point people at it", not "I am promoting myself by doing this". Ubernostrum 10:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just as curious as to why this is such a big deal for Boyd. I mean, if someone wants to always sign their name in lowercase (or, as an author uncle of mine did, in green ink), that's up to them on how they live their daily lives, but I honestly don't understand why it's an issue that they want to push with the press. I personally see these kinds of stylistic changes as an idiosyncrasy at best, or perhaps a type of fan worship (is Boyd a fan of k.d. lang?) like when fans get the name of their favorite artist tattooed on a part of their body. There's also the self-promotion aspect, as people will dye their hair a neon-bright color, just to make themselves more visible at a convention. Or actors will deliberately misspell their name with a "Y" instead of an "I" in order to make their names more memorable. And at worst, I see some of these style changes as a deliberate attempt at social trolling, a technique by some who wish to thumb their nose at convention, through a self-centered desire to make everyone else adapt to their view of the world -- it's a power game played by the ultra-vain. As for if any of these apply to Boyd, I really don't know. I'm curious, but the answer doesn't matter all that much -- even if I personally sympathized with Boyd's reasoning for lowercasing her name, I would still insist that the Wikipedia article title conform to Wikipedia:Use common names. Which means the same style used by New York Times, Newsweek, and the other reliable sources, "Danah Boyd". For more info, see this essay,[3] which has a good point. If someone wanted to give themselves a name that was hundreds of characters long, they could do so, and it might even be legal. But if such a person were notable, popular press would doubtless come up with a "shorthand" version of the name (maybe "The Alphabet Man"), and then that's the version of the name that we'd use here at the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I thought the essay explained it rather well and didn't appear to be self-promotion at all. I don't personally know danah, so I can't speak to anything other than having read it and wondered why Wikipedia chose to ignore what is apparently a verifiable fact, other than to imitate "reliable" newspaper articles. And, again, I worry at the selective blindness with regard to sources -- look at the university's page listing her. Look at academic publications. Heck, look at the paper by danah that Wikipedia itself cites in the reliability article I mentioned above. These are reliable sources per Wikipedia policy and they use "danah boyd", but they've been either ignored or -- in one case above -- questioned as somehow suspect because danah might have had a hand in their adherence to the lower-case. Wikipedians have previously suggested that getting the "mainstream" media sources to correct themselves would be a productive way to get this changed, so it seems disengenuous to then follow up with "well, we may disregard anything that originated with her". If I hunted down wire articles that the paper I work for has run which use "Danah Boyd" and convinced our editors to issue a correction to "danah boyd", would that too be dismissed? Ubernostrum 10:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the blog post you cite is about the clearest example of IDONTLIKEIT I've ever seen ;) Ubernostrum 10:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, folks. This has now come up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Danah_Boyd_or_danah_boyd. Danah Boyd is a friend of friends, so I'll stay out of the substance, but are you folks really unable to sort this out amongst yourselves? If the answer to that question remains "yes", then might I suggest you jointly prepare a summary of the points involved? Any by summary, I mean something short, with bullet points. That will at least aid other people stopping by, and will certainly make it easier if you pursue dispute resolution. William Pietri 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The thread has already been archived due to lack of input Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive93#Danah Boyd or danah boyd. - Neier 09:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll make a start on one side of it, trying to summarize everything that's been said above or that's popped into my head while discussing this:

• danah has an essay explaining that she went through a lot of hassle to get her name changed, and which criticizes style guides for imposing capitalization when it's not desired (this was part of why I felt it might be a BLP issue).
• Her university and respectable academic publications all list her as "danah boyd".
• danah herself gives her name as "danah boyd", and originally there seemed to be consensus that this didn't violate BLP guidelines on using the subject as a source.
• Newspapers which use "Danah Boyd" are likely doing so out of conformance to a style guide rather than researching verifiable information about the capitalization of the name.
• People who are conducting research on her will likely find the naming essay on her site and be startled that Wikipedia "gets it wrong", as evidenced by the number of times this has come up (that's how I ended up in this mess).
• The MoS doesn't appear to be intended as absolute; exceptions have been made in the past for "idiosyncratic" capitalization (e.g., iPod, eBay, etc.) when backed up (as in this case with reliable academic sources) by actual usage.

If anybody thinks I've missed any important points on this side of the discussion, please fill them in. Ubernostrum 10:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You should also add that you are the only one championing the cause of the lowercase spelling at this point, and even that is against any established policy or guideline on the matter. We have the concept of consensus for a reason; let's put it to work here. In addition, you point to the exceptions for "idiosyncratic" capitalization in the MoS (iPod, eBay). If you read the actual bullet points at WP:MOS-TM#Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter, those exceptions exist only for trademarks in which the second letter is capitalized. It explicity states that "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized". -- Renesis (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

So, again, are you arguing that MoS could conceivably trump any and all other policies on Wikipedia? If the NYT, FT, etc. all issued corrections tomorrow saying "our bad, her name's lowercase", would you still argue per MoS that Wikipedia couldn't lowercase the name? Ubernostrum 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That depends. In that highly unlikely case that the NYT or another institution lowercases a name, I would probably review other similar cases. The MOS was made for a reason, though, and the first-letter/second-letter rule had consensus of dozens of editors (see WP:MOS-TM talk or archives). -- Renesis (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And that's one of the things that's bugging me here: if we get to a situation where capitalization is a matter of verifiable fact and not just an issue of style, it appears that many people would still want the MoS to trump WP:V. That's why in the discussion above I've repeatedly been harping on whether the capitalization of danah's name is a matter of fact, because this article is a very strong example of why that policy (style over substance, essentially) is problematic. Ubernostrum 06:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty with your argument is that capitalization is just a matter of style, never a matter of fact. In certain Asian locations, Boyd's name would be written Danah BOYD. In most American style guides her name is written Danah Boyd. Neither of these is "factually" correct or incorrect. The idea that an individual can exert control on the capitalization of his or her own name is an extremely recent idea, apparently invented by marketing departments, which does not have widespread support among publishers. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to offer some insight on the first letter/second letter exception: It was recently narrowed down to only apply to separable one-letter prefixes, in order to prevent abuse. As such, its reasoning is not only "this sort of typesetting does not hurt readability too much" but also "that prefix signifies a meaning". Well, in any case, it does not apply to an all-lowercased name. - Cyrus XIII 08:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Having other sources which produce the name in lower-case should do absolutely nothing to change the status here at Wikipedia. As I have said above more than once, it is not a matter of content, but of the presentation style. An iPod is an ipod is an IPod. Until Wikipedia policy regarding capital letters changes, it doesn't matter if the NYT calls her Danah, danah, or daNah. If they start calling her Dana, and it catches on, then, we have an issue for the common names; but, it would still be capitalized. Neier 14:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] Ubernostrum, as CBM says, facts are not the same as style. Feel free to add to the article that Danah says her name is legally changed to "danah boyd". Add the source as herself. I don't care. As for how Wikipedia writes that name, we are free to do whatever our style guide says we do; that's why the style guide exists. Again, the point here is: WP:V is for facts (content), WP:MOS is for how the writing appears (style). Capitalization is style, not content. -- Renesis (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Related Philosophical Issue

Concerning the controversy as to whether people should be referred to as they wish to be referred to or by some external "objective" standard, does Wikipedia have a policy on how to refer to transgendered persons? Do we simply say "this person wants to be referred to as (female/male), so let's respect their wishes," or do we ask them to disrobe so we can check specific anatomic features? (See Stacy Horn's book Cyberville for a fun discussion of how complicated this issue gets!)

For what it's worth, for both capitalization and gender I would suggest that we let the subject themselves choose how they wish to be referred to. YMMV. Asbruckman 13:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the right answer both to capitalization and gender pronouns is that Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, should follow the conventions used by prominent secondary sources. We don't need to "decide" which gender pronoun to use, we can follow the published usage of others. But I think that gender identity is a much more important issue for us to worry about than "capitalization identity". — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Summary

My own summary of the above discussion is this: Reliable sources such as the San Francisco Chronicle, Wired, New York Times, Financial Times, Newsweek magazine, NPR, and others capitalize Boyd's name normally: "Danah Boyd". However, Boyd herself, Zephoria (talk · contribs), says both here in the discussion and on her webpage, that her name is legally lower-cased. The lowercased spelling has indeed been included in the lead of the Wikipedia article, but this does not appear sufficient to satisfy Boyd, who also wants the article title changed, and all references to her name throughout the article to be listed as lowercase. Ubernostrum agrees with Boyd, and argues that it's a WP:BLP violation to "misspell" the name, and Ubernostrum has posted as much on the BLP Noticeboard. Everyone else in the recent discussion (myself, Renesis, Cyrus XIII, CBM/CBM2, Wickethewok, Neier), says that the name should stay "Danah Boyd" per the reliable sources and Use common names. A drive-by admin, DragonflySixtyseven, tried to change the article title to lower case about a week or two ago, but was rapidly reverted, and has backed out, saying it's up to us to settle.[4]

From my read, the clear consensus is to keep the name at uppercase, "Danah Boyd", but Ubernostrum refuses to acknowledge the consensus, and continues to argue. It is my opinion that Ubernostrum's arguments have been listened to with great patience, civility, and good faith, carefully weighed, but ultimately rejected, and that several editors including myself have put in an enormous amount of time to patiently argue each of Ubernostrum's points. I would also like to say that I greatly appreciate that Ubernostrum has continued arguing in good faith and with great civility. He has presented his case in a thorough and articulate manner. However, I also believe that at this point Ubernostrum has presented no new substantive arguments, but basically just refuses to let things go, and refuses to acknowledge consensus. That is why we have asked at WP:AN, twice, for a third-party admin to come in and make a formal determination, but both threads seem to have scrolled out of WP:AN without substantial assistance. If we cannot get an admin that way, and Ubernostrum still refuses to acknowledge consensus, I recommend that we proceed to mediation, and request a neutral mediator from WP:MEDCOM to see if we can put the issue to rest that way. --Elonka 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Myself, Wickethewok, and CBM are administrators, however, I agree with William Pietri (below) that "administrator status" isn't the solution to this issue. If we can't come to a final agreement, we may need to go through WP:DR; however, I believe we have come to consensus already. It will be disappointing if this needs to go further. -- Renesis (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I can go a long way with you here, but... I'm questioning whether there's a consensus. There are two other previous discussions on this topic still on this page, and I'm far from the only one who's agreed that the article title should be lowercase (or at least that there are grounds for considering it). On the other side... well, there's you, Cyrus and Renesis consistently presenting the same argument over and over again, with little or no substantive change, while others question whether that's the correct way to go. Who's the consensus and who's refusing to acknowledge it? ;) Ubernostrum 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I'm not saying there is a consensus for "danah boyd" or that anyone's ignoring it, just pointing out that a history of inconclusive discussions, with people on both sides presenting good cases, does not a consensus make -- it feels like this article has ended up not with consensus, but with one side or another always just walking away exasperated after making no progress. I've got the energy to see this through as needed, so I'm trying to avoid having that happen again; a real resolution (and, if necessary, me wandering off to propose and argue for changes to MoS for a while) is what's needed here. Ubernostrum 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the summaries Elonka and Ubernostrum. That will make it a lot easier for others to sort through this. Personally, my opinion is that administrators are just editors who have access to a couple of special tools that they use on behalf of the community as a whole. Thus, I think WP:AN isn't the right place to resolve content disputes; it's WP:DR. -- William Pietri 18:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that administrator status is not relevant here, and would be glad to comment in any disput resolution process. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Mediation of this dispute has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd. I have listed the recent participants from the discussion at this talkpage. If anyone else watching this page would like to participate in the mediation, you are welcome to add your name as well. Or if you have questions about the mediation process, you can read up on it at Wikipedia:Mediation, or ask here and we'll do our best to answer.  :) --Elonka 00:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

After seeing the "progress" so far, I'm wondering what was the point of requesting mediation? It seems like issues only go there to die. I'd like to see this get resolved. -- Renesis (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked at other cases that Daniel has mediated. The way that Daniel he seems to work, is that he accepts a case, reads up on it for a few days, and then requests everyone to post a statement on the mediation talkpage. To his credit, he did accept the case very rapidly (he could have waited out the entire week). If we want to push things along a bit, it probably couldn't hurt for each of us to post a statement at talk. I'd recommend something brief, 500 words or less, giving your "from the ground up" summary of the current dispute. --Elonka 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(followup) It appears that a new mediator has been suggested, to help with the backlog. All parties are required to agree to the addition, before the case can proceed. Please check the mediation page when you get a chance, thanks. --Elonka 00:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I never actually said I'd be mediating this case. What I did was accepted it for the Mediation Committee, because it met all the requirements we require, and it was then added to the list of Open Tasks in the "Unassigned" section. There's something written about this here. If you have any further questions or comments, feel free to ask on my talk page or via email, and I wish you and Riana all the best! Daniel 09:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's summary above fails to mention the reliable sources which do use her name with lowercase letters. Whoever mediates this should see the archives, where they are cited. I was involved in this discussion, and hope for the correct outcome, but it became too disgusting and stressful for me to continue. —pfahlstrom 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Pfahlstrom, if you would like, you are welcome to join the mediation. We are currently each presenting a statement of our thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Danah Boyd. --Elonka 00:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the welcome, but I find I'm unable to discuss subjects I'm passionate about without becoming overly stressed. I wish that weren't the case, but I don't feel this is a good time to try to acclimate myself. Perhaps in a few years. Until then, best wishes. —pfahlstrom 22:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

The article on me currently states: "According to her website, she experimented with different methods of spelling and capitalization for her name, and during college was known as "Danah Michele Mattas Beard", but after her mother's divorce, she chose her maternal grandfather's name, Boyd, as her own last name and eventually settled on giving her name as "danah boyd".[6]" This is inaccurate and does not reflect the cited reference. My mother was divorced when I was a child; I added the name "Beard" then (dropping Mattas but that's not clear on my site since I breezed through that section). Starting in high school, I petitioned to change my name to "Boyd" along with the rest of my family; this was completed during college. This did not take place right after my mother's divorce, but years later. Also, the webpage cited does not say anything about experimenting with spelling or capitalization. Zephoria 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the quote from this article has the same name as the source, "Danah Michele Mattas Beard" (and above it seems like you are saying there was no "Mattas") Did you at some point drop just the Mattas ("Danah Michele Beard"?) and would you like the article to state such? I'm not quite sure I understand what change you'd like reflected, though I've removed the spelling and capitalization bit. -- Renesis (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing... I don't think that Jonathan Abrams would say that I was acquainted with the people starting the Friendster service - I don't think that he liked me so much. I became acquainted with a lot of people involved in Web2.0 but not the folks behind Friendster. -Zephoria 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somewhat futile at this point, but

According to the Boston Globe, "danah boyd": http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2008/02/18/techs_feminine_side/?page=2 Ubernostrum (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

With time to reflect on things, it appears to me that the capitalization issue is a completely stylistic matter. Everyone has his own style guide, which tells him how to properly capitalize a name. Wikipedia has its own. There is no outside authority on style (except Tim Gunn). Andyparkerson (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with Andy here. Further, in the five Boston Globe articles where she is mentioned, they have it as "Danah Boyd" in four of them, so that article is not the strongest piece of evidence for the "danah boyd" rendering. William Pietri (talk) 01:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

And yet, the fact that even mainstream sources can't seem to agree on this, or even come to a consensus within their own organizations (witness "danah boyd" and "Danah Boyd" in stories from the same organizations), probably indicates that there's room for debate here. Sadly, no-one seems much interested in "debate" about how to handle this sort of thing; absolute proscription, backed by a clique of admins, FTW. Ubernostrum (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's dial back the drama here. We've had the debate. Both sides have made their cases known. Everyone has been heard. The reason no one is still talking is that there is nothing new to add. Andyparkerson (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No drama, really. I came back and looked over the whole thing again, and it's pretty obvious what goes on: somebody comes in and proposes the lower-case usage, backs it up and maybe gets a little support. Then a clique of very specific admins descends, puts up a fight (often with no variation, just repeating an argument again and again on the assumption that maybe we didn't hear it right the first fifty times it was responded to) and/or threatens to ban people (hi, Elonka!) until the opposition gives up. Then they declare a consensus in their favor and that's that. It's been a very instructive example of how to win at Wikipedia, and I thank you all for the educational opportunity. Ubernostrum (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Is your "No drama" statement meant to be ironic? You went on to describe your perspective of events in what seems to be the most dramatic way possible. You need to step back for a second and try to analyze events without your perspective bias...

• When you are arguing, it's debate. When anyone else is arguing, it's people who are swooping in, not interested in debate, only in their own view.
• When you think you are right, it's vigilant. When anyone else thinks they are right, it is stubborn and ignorant.
• When you put forward and argument that's already been used (you really only have one or two) it's valuable because those are the facts. When anyone else says the same thing they've said before, you mark it is invalid simply because it's not new, and declare they must just think you didn't hear it. Maybe it's because you are repeating yourself in return, making everyone think you didn't understand. Or maybe, just maybe, that's actually a valid argument and it's worth hearing.
• When 5-10 admins agree or other editors who think differently from you, it's a clique or a conspiracy. When you and one other person agree, you portray it as representing some invisible majority. (Why don't you look at all our talk pages, or contribution history? There is no conspiracy, no collaboration. Simply people who disagree with you. I've disagreed with this point of view since almost two years ago, long before I was an administrator.)

All that is really enlightening here is your perspective bias. You can't seem to ever be wrong unless it was because of a dramatic conspiracy, or an unfair fight that ended in the "wrong" consensus. So really, Andyparkerson had a really good point when he said, "Let's dial back the drama here." -- Renesis (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, UN, but that comes across as a big helping of drama from this side of the screen. If that's not how you intend to come across, there are plenty of uninvolved parties on Wikipedia who will happily help you improve. For example, the Mediation Cabal is full of people like that.

I agree completely: this is a debatable point. Many things in style guides are; if they weren't, we wouldn't need to document them. But we've already had the debate. That the rest of us feel our time could be better spent than rehashing it isn't anything against you or Danah Boyd. She's in my social circle, and I have nothing but positive feelings for her. Were you in mine, I'm sure I'd feel the same way: my dad has a degree in philosophy, half my friends are web people, and a fair number of the rest are journalists and writers. But crikey, it's hard to be happy that you're reopening a debate that everybody, you included, see as futile. Please let it go until you have something big enough that you really think it will change the consensus. William Pietri (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to be happy with what's happened here, period. Seriously, go look back over the history: someone proposes the change, Elonka and a couple others come down on it like a ton of bricks, and proceed to shout down the opposition for as long as necessary (occasionally dropping ominous hints about their adminship), while never once dealing with, say, the reliable sources which use "danah boyd" or responding to the apparent policy conflict at the heart of this. Meanwhile, they're happy to cite essays which take a dismissive POV attitude toward people who prefer to idiosyncratically case their names (Hi again, Elonka!) while claiming that this does not disrespect the subject of the article. Is it so hard to see why one might grow disillusioned after months of this? Ubernostrum (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Generally conflicts on Wikipedia have both sides feeling that the other side has behaved shockingly. That's nothing new, as the bit about motes and beams suggests. Perhaps if you and Elonka were to talk this over some via email, you could both find ways to come across better to fellow editors. The way I keep from getting too disillusioned, both here and elsewhere, is to focus on the people and the process rather than particular outcomes. For example, I'm confident that along with honoring thy father and mother, God mandated the serial comma and cuddled elses. But when I am working among heathen, I'll follow local style, as I'd rather get the job done, and respecting their (foolish, erroneous) beliefs will create opportunities to bring them around later. And yes, I'm caricaturing myself here a bit, but only by a little. William Pietri (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I find it somewhat amusing that my name keeps getting dragged into this, despite the fact that I haven't posted on this page since July 2007.  ;) I could repeat, "Let's please stick to discussing the article, not the other editors," to see if anyone actually pays attention. But for the record: I still think that the title "Danah Boyd" is appropriate, though "danah boyd" should definitely be mentioned in the lead. If at some point it looks like the primary method that Boyd's name is referred to in outside reliable sources, is the lowercased "danah boyd", then I might be willing to change my mind on how this article is titled. But how the subject herself styles her name, is not a compelling reason for me to go against Wikipedia style guidelines, because it's too arbitrary. Someone could come in and want to go uppercase one day, lowercase the next, ALL CAPS the next, last name first the next, etc., and we'd end up just running ragged trying to keep up with the subject's wishes. Which is why we don't do things that way on Wikipedia. Instead, we have our own style guidelines, and we follow the lead of outside reliable sources. And since the primary method in those outside sources still appears to be "Danah Boyd", my opinion has not changed. Wikipedia is here to summarize information that has already been published in reliable sources, not to act as a publicity outlet for Ms. Boyd.

Since consensus is clear on this, can we all please move on again, to the 2 million odd other articles on Wikipedia which could benefit from our attention? --Elonka 19:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Two questions for you, then, and I'd appreciate honest answers because so far as I can tell you, as one of the most stalwart capitalizers, have not satisfactorily answered either of them at any point:

1. If one or more "mainstream media" sources -- for example, the New York Times -- were to issue a correction and state that their use of "Danah Boyd" was incorrect, would your position change?

2. Given that there are different classes of reliable sources which differ on this issue, why do you focus exclusively on one class and ignore another? On what grounds do you, personally, judge that a newspaper article is more reliable than, say, a peer-reviewed journal (where correct citation is of vital importance, and mistakes in citing source can quite literally ruin careers)?

I await your reply. Ubernostrum (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To address point #2, in academic publications the styling of author name is controlled by the author, not peer reviewers. Even if it weren't, academic peers are unlikely to challenge her on this point because it would complicate their professional relationships with her. I.e., consulting these sources for name style is equivalent to consulting Ms. Boyd herself.

FWIW, I have previously been lurker on this discussion and agree with the consensus ("Danah Boyd"). --208.42.95.155 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ubernostrum: If the NY Times published a correction, I agree that that would have weight, and I would definitely consider it in combination with other sources. As for the difference between newspapers and academic journals, the anon's post above is very pertinent. I would also point out that Wikipedia's guidelines on this matter are to title an article with the "most common name" that someone is referred to. Usage in mainstream newspapers, which have readers in the millions, is a better indicator of "common usage" than a spelling in a relatively low-circulation academic journal which may only have a few hundred subscribers. Our goal here at Wikipedia is to provide a resource for laypeople, for the "mainstream". And mainstream usage appears, to me and many others here, to still be "Danah Boyd". --Elonka 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may delurk for a moment, I object to the implication that wider readership indicates greater authority. By that standard, the Weekly World News would be more authoritative than the Encyclopedia Britannica. Surely the careful attention paid to accuracy by academic institutions and publishers counts for more than the quick-and-dirty review of newspaper editors? (For the record, I'm in the minority: I feel that the final, overriding authority over the spelling of a proper name--and yes, it is a spelling issue--is the person him/herself, if that person is alive. BLP, in other words. If she says it's "danah boyd", then it's "danah boyd", period. Spelling it any differently demonstrates a complete disregard for her wishes--the same disregard shown to her by the New York Times.) Brian Eisley (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The subject of the article says her name is "danah boyd". She has legal documents verifying that her legal name is "danah boyd". There really shouldn't be any further debate on the issue. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My view: although common usage is definitely helpful as an indicator, and I'd agree that general-circulation newspapers carry a lot more weight, I focus on convenience to readers. Many studies have shown that scannability is very important for the usability of text on the web. Capitalizing names and other proper nouns makes them easier to find when scanning. Although I don't have studies to prove it, I'd also expect that nonstandard capitalization is distracting to readers. Were eye-tracking studies done, I'd predict a lot more re-reads and slower comprehension compared with standard capitalization. The primary value of Wikipedia is in making easily digestible reference information available to the general reader, and I think nonstandard formatting goes against the grain of that. William Pietri (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)