This is a page for discussion of the content of the original page. This page was created because there was a dispute or argument about the content of the page Noteworthy Published Authors. Hashing out our differences here will allow for a more productive dialogue and won't clutter the original page.
How is "published" determined? I think there's a difference between having a book published and having material in a literary magazine or consigned at a local book shop. But I don't know much of anything about the publishing industry or how the term "published" could apply. Thoughts?
Something printed in a literary magazine is without a doubt considered published. A book printed is possibly published, depending on whether you require an ISBN number for legitimacy. You'll note that ISBN numbers can be bought by anyone, so that's also probably a moot point. As for the definition of publish/ing/ed — An issue of printed material offered for sale or distribution... Communication of information to the public... To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale... This will also beg the question of copyright. Something published is generally copyrighted. Interestingly enough, it can be argued in court that any official bring together of information into a single place with a purpose (usually created) is automatically copyright.
I'm going to have to agree with Philip in that the word "published" is pretty loaded... if we were to base this list on technicality, then we could easily add every single writer from The California Aggie, AS Papers, or any other form of publication we have on campus—and this page would be really boring to read. Hence, I'm changing the title of this page...if people disagree with it, go ahead and change it to whatever you suggest. -BrianChen
-
I don't really like the word 'noteworthy' here. Too subjective, too loaded. How about "professional," by which I mean that they derive most of their income from writing (with the possible added caveat, 'excluding journalism,' since the news is generally considered an ephemeral medium.)
-
That won't work. Most people on this list don't derive most of their income from writing.
-
How about just making a few different pages for "fiction authors", "non-fiction authors", "journalists", "childrens book authors", "poets", etc. It really doesn't matter if they're published or if they're professional (but that type of information could be listed on their PersonPages). The wiki is big enough for all Davis authors, isn't it? The most highly esteemed list, however, would of course be wiki authors. And we would probably want to cut the categorization off when people start making pages for "email authors", "english 101a essay assignment authors" and things like that.
-
I would still like to have a list of famous and otherwise noteworthy authors, rather than a list filled with every author. I think it's more useful and interesting to learn about some of the published — as in, books you find in bookstores — authors. I disagree with the idea that it doesn't matter if they are professional/published verses not-so. I find it interesting to learn about those who have succeeded in getting something published and live in/have influenced our town. Once the list is too long, then yes, I think that might be important. But I've always thought there's no point in doing that sort of thing until the original page gets too large. For instance, The Avid Reader has a "Local Authors" section — because it's really cool to see what our fellow residents are publishing! Real poets will shake their heads at any of the possible lists — because it's just a popularity issue, anyway.
I suggest we limit our definition of publication to those people who currently have a book in Borders. In that case we will be deleting pretty much every professor, except for Joe Wenderoth on a good day. But, if you don't count having 325,000 copyrighted copies of your work in circulation... several thousand dollars worth of copyrighted book sales, publications in undergraduate literary magazines, etc. as publication, then you're right. I'm not published. I think I'll go edit the Fox News wiki page. LOL. I won't add myself back. If someone else does, that's fine... Amusingly enough, I've dedicated this entire summer to submitting and sending query letters to literary magazines. You'd be surprised how hard it is to get printed in one of these things. At first I couldn't even get a rejection letter, then I got a few, and finally a bunch of acceptances. As for for sending query letters for longer pieces of fiction and especially nonfiction, the market is a very difficult place for people who aren't interested in writing self-help novels, science fiction, or vampire goth erotica. Bummer. Maybe we should have a wiki page dedicated to artwork that doesn't make the best-seller list. I really recommend going down to Borders and picking up every book in the best-sellers list. I'd be surprised if you could honestly say you don't want to puke to the title or description of 90 percent of them. Bored? Head over to Blockbuster and do the same thing. Still bored? Try our friendly music store next to Starbucks... One of our published authors, Joshua Clover, is dead set against any such publication and fights wholeheartedly against BarnesAndNoble, Amazon, Borders, etc. Perhaps our published authors page does need to be modified/clarified; however, if thats the definition we're supporting, I definitely don't belong there.
-
Did you write "Sporting Pedagogies: Performing Culture & Identity in the Global Arena"? That's the only entry your name has at Amazon.com. If that's you, I'll add you.
In general, I think the wiki is missing a lot in terms of Davis art/artists. There seems to be a mini wiki-community backlash for pretty much all forms of art added, except perhaps band pages. This is probably because the artistic process is often times a very person, private thing. This seems to class with the wiki's communal nature. When writers, painters, sculptors, etc. work on their creative project, they often spend months or years creating a single thing. But, when they share their with the community, it's not merely blatant self promotion. There should be place that supports such artists and their struggle to convey a message through self expression. I challenge the wiki community to find a way to coherently, easily, and logically organize a means for such artists to come to the wiki and share their work. Not only will this increase the amount of new and interesting content that is added on a daily basis, but it will show that Davis is an artistic city, a place that admires, cherishes, and respects the role of the artist. I don't know exactly what you're trying to accomplish by specifying the publication requirements so stringently. A literary magazine is a pretty tough place to get published and personally I would be interested to know which students at the University have accomplished such a feat. Beyond that, there are thousands upon thousands of presses that fit your "slightly higher" caliber requirement. Are these allowed? Beyond that, there about 3-4 major presses like Random House. Is this what we mean by respected and quality publishing houses? A great deal of authors despise these houses and what they're doing to the artistic community. It seems to me that the theory behind the wiki, the essence of the wiki in general is in direct opposition to these major houses. Similarly, I don't think any of the authors on our page our published by these companies. Most are published by tiny presses that can be found in Writer's Market, which are no larger than, and sometimes smaller than literary magazines. I would bet that some of these authors made less on their novel deal than Davis students have made publishing in literary magazines. Bummer, huh? Furthermore, I don't know exactly what you mean by noteworthy... Is "Baby Signs: How to talk to your baby" a more noteworthy, more interesting topic than an Aggie columnist or someone who has literary fiction at Newsbeat? Is being co-authorof books on behavioral ecology what we really want on this page? Most pHD professors co-edit textbooks. And is his being an editor of any relation to his being an author? I'm just pointing out that I think this page is taking the wrong direction, when it (or some new page(s)) have the opportunity to really improve the wiki for the better. Some of the authors on that page are quite prestigious, but others are not so. Nonetheless, this prestigious-quality is more subjective than we think. Some are going to think Sandra Gilbert's critical theory is boring compared to the science fiction authors. Does that mean some are less impressive? I bet if I searched the publishers on that page in the Writer's Market that some of those publishers are self-published, vanity-press, etc. I don't know what to do, but I'll let the community decide what they want to do with art. You know my opinions on it.
-
I agree the title "Noteworthy" might seem elitest, but it was my impression, having viewed the page as titled "Published Authors" that there was something special about being published. I think your bit about creativity is a red herring; nothing was said about creativity on wiki. Rather, this is about a list of 'published authors,', not about the ability of authors to publish via wiki.
-
You're right, the comment on art isn't meant to state a fact about our discussion here. Instead, it's a general feeling/trend that I have noticed on the wiki. The published author page is an attempt to acknowledge artists, that's why I think the art-rant is relevant/related. As I mentioned, I don't think the published artist page is where we should branch a new wiki-art-venue, but it did remind of how apprehensive I have been about adding people and their art to the wiki. It just hasn't been very well accepted in my few attempts... Sorry I'm not sticking to topic... I'll just leave it at that and let people evolve the wiki like they always do. Once we've got all of Davis analytically categorized, it will probably be the next step of development for lack of another direction for new pages.
-
I'm not sure where exactly this trend is you're seeing. I haven't really seen you add that much people and 'their art', except for the authors page in which I think the only one objected to was your own. I think there's a big difference in the issues though in this 'trend.' For your articles, for example. No one was "against" the articles themselves. What they were against was hosting every single one on its own page. While mentioning it or linking to it is fine, I disagree with hosting a page for every piece of literature that's been published. There's not a problem with the 'art' being introduced or mentioned. It's just that I don't think most people view a wiki as an archive. It would be like going into one of the museum's or art galleries on campus, and taking a picture of every painting and sculpture and hosting it. It's not because of the content, rather the way it's presented that people were against. Which is also what led some to see it as self-promotion. It would be like that artist hosted a page for every work he did rather then just point to the museum and say go see. Even if rightfully proud, it would look like hes going for more exposure. (Note: that does not refer to the stand alone art and statues placed around the city. I'm talking about a piece of something, ie a newspaper article or a single painting in a gallery). In regards to the published page itself, I agree that co-authoring a textbook is a bit lame, as many of the professors have written or co-written them on campus.
-
That would be tight if we had thumbnails of museum pictures. It's bringing the art to the people who wouldn't otherwise go to the museum...
-
Thumbnails, especially as samplers, add to the page about the museum/exhibit/gallery/etc. But a separate page for every one wouldn't help.
-
I still vote for individual pages for different categories of books: fiction, non-fiction, even textbooks. This could be combined with the idea of keeping published and unpublished authors separate by making two sections on each page. On the meta-page for all these categories, we might keep a general list of the famous writers in the lot.
-
Let's title the page Distinguished Published Authors: If You're on the Wiki Thinking You Can Be One...You Probably Can't
