Talk:Susan P. Crawford

Untitled

I can see why you took out the Keith Goldfarb quote, since it had not citation. But I think Susan may be disappointed: it showed her humorous side in a way that is now absent from the article. For that reason, I'd contest the notion that it wasn't of "historical interest." I think it is.

Also, there might be something to be said for the fact that if the subject of an article doesn't contest facts contained therein, they have some likelihood of being true.Scooge (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not the practice of wikipedia to depend on the intervention of the subject of a biographical article to determine the veracity or journalistic integrity of a "fact" posted to their bio. In point of fact, many actual persons have lost debates as to whether or not something should be included in their wikipedia article, when they did not have references to cite to support the material they wished to include or counter. As to the quote, it seemed quite typical of the sort of friendly-but-not-really-as-witty-as-it-seemed-at-the-time banter of a high school student and I doubt anyone in the midst of a professional career would want that prominently featured in an article about them. Nor does it tell the readership anything about the subject other than that she once was a high school student with normal proclivities for expressing opinions about a friend's hair length. Most readers will not care about the continued state of said friend's hair or the subject's inability to convince him to shorten it, many years ago.

The rest of the "Early life" portion is also unsupported, but has potential historical interest (should the group of friends all go on to have stunning careers, or work together in collaboration, etc.) so I am leaving it for the moment. Such early life information is fairly irregular so far as the structure of wikipedia bio articles goes; listing high school friends arbitrarily borders on an invasion of privacy - unless it is motivated by general interest and relevancy, this information about the subject's childhood seems overly personal, and was presented in an intimate and informal tone. I hope this can be expanded into a more complete article with more information as to Crawford's position on the ICANN board, for instance. It is not our task to reveal every detail of a person's life and personality, but to explore the aspects of their history that illuminate those actions and circumstances that bring them to public attention. Netmouse (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That was the point; they did go on to have stunning careers; it truly was a "Bloomsbury Group" type of phenomenon.

DaveBurstein (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)I made the somewhat arbitrary decision to cut most of the details here. My opinion is that these folks future careers, while laudatory, just aren't in the same class as a "Bloombury Group." In addition, some of her later colleagues, especially a group from Yale, are even more distinguished, so emphasizing these people seems odd. I won't go to war over this if someone disagrees, but I think there are much more interesting things to say about her.

But you're right; there may not be enough here about Crawford's activism re: web-related issues (ICANN and the like). Let me see if I can dig some more up.Scooge (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article needs work

There should be a whole section on Internet activism. I will start it. Wwwhatsup (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC) DaveBurstein (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Susan, a friend and occasional subject of my news reporting, has been remarkably articulate on her blog which will provide material. Apologies for not having the time to write more now. Separately, she has just been in the news with comments on the fiber for the national broadband plan. I did not incorporate that hear, because I believe the news report slightly misses her point.

Official title?

I am yet to see official confirmation of the title Special Assistant to the President for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy - all googlable sources seem to be based the original "rumour" reference in the National Journal. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC) DaveBurstein (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I'm doublechecking, but I think it's right.

According to David Weinberger's blog, it looks like the National Journal got it wrong. "[April 1, but no joke: I spoke with Susan a couple of days ago and de-confirmed this "news." National Journal got it wrong, and I repeated it, perpetuating the error. Sorry. Susan is indeed part of the Obama team, but reporting to Larry Summers, advising on tech policy, which is indeed fantastic. And true." [1] --Joi (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Found a YouTube video where Susan is introduced as a Special Assistant to the President and a member of the National Economic Council. [2] I'll look for a better reference, but for now, I'll use this and add her title again. --Joi (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Found a text reference here. [http://www.netcaucus.org/biography/susan-crawford.shtml] --Joi (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Errors in reporting

It's unfortunate that Wikipedia generally cannot document when a biography subject has published material that then has to be corrected later by the publisher, given that a reliable source would actually have to go to the length of publishing a story about how the subject has had to have material corrected on a repeated basis. But, I know for a fact that Crawford has published erroneous information (in Financial Times, for example) that the publisher later had to amend. - 2600:1002:B014:130:A4B9:321A:26DE:6D (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)