Talk:Michael Gorman (librarian)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
User 164.67.233.179 copied this text word-for-word from http://mg.csufresno.edu/biography.htm , but I suspect this person did so without permission. A new version of this article should be written, or permission should be sought from Mr. Gorman.
- am working on cleaning it up and finding other sources... phoebe 00:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy
I don't think the controversy described is significant enough to be in the article. It's not encyclopedic. Are there cites for it outside of the blogosphere? Rlitwin 17:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- should be reworked, probably, but it was a fairly major deal in the library profession at the time; threw his ALA presidency and competency into question. Not sure if there are any cites outside the blogosphere, other than the original article. It would make most sense to keep in the context of an expanded article, which I'm working on. But, if it seems completely un-notable, I'm fine with leaving it out as well. phoebe 00:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. It was not a major deal in the library profession at the time and it did not throw his competency or presidency into question. It only did this within the library blogosphere, which is a really small corner of the profession that simply doesn't read enough of the main literature of the profession to have an accurate sense of the actual place and significance of its discourse. That may be different in 10 years, but right now it's a small minority of librarians who are bloggers and pretty much nobody outside of that group found this matter to be significant. That is why I think it doesn't belong in the article. Rlitwin 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Rlitwin, and have deleted the comment, leaving the refs, which are enough of a hint until the rewrite. If you want to use it in the expanded article, fine, Personally, I dont think his bio is worth a major expansion, but if you want to do it, I've no real objection. DGG 02:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I beg to differ. It was not a major deal in the library profession at the time and it did not throw his competency or presidency into question. It only did this within the library blogosphere, which is a really small corner of the profession that simply doesn't read enough of the main literature of the profession to have an accurate sense of the actual place and significance of its discourse. That may be different in 10 years, but right now it's a small minority of librarians who are bloggers and pretty much nobody outside of that group found this matter to be significant. That is why I think it doesn't belong in the article. Rlitwin 03:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
