Talk:Nathan Schneider

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nathan Schneider. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/atheologies/7133/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131017231609/http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1576512_us-ct-occupy-wall-street-background-.html to https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/1576512_us-ct-occupy-wall-street-background-.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I created this page about myself, in violation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Autobiography Wikipedia best practices]. It was wrong, and I am sorry for it.

I did this at a time when I felt very strongly the pressures of self-promotion. I was working as a freelance reporter, and my livelihood depended on visibility and the appearance of credibility. I created the page anonymously and, when my first attempts were unsuccessful, I added to it and developed it until it was published. Occasionally, I have since edited it for accuracy.

In the years since, as I should have immediately, I have come to regret this transgression of the rules—the rules of a platform and community that I greatly respect. I now teach university students about the values of peer-production communities, and this has caused me to remember from time to time this case in which I violated those values.

The path to repentance is easier for me due to the fact that I am no longer so much subject to the rule of the attention economy. The ancient guild of the academy today encourages its share of precariousness and attention-mongering, but one thing it does is collectivize certain aspects of knowledge production. The solidarity among my colleagues has quelled my former anxiety to appear more respectable and visible than my work deserves; their example tugs me toward greater integrity. With them, I also share certain resources for online self-presentation, such as our college’s website and the university’s publicity services.

I have been reflecting on the pressures that tempted me to create this page—the economy of intellectual production that relies on precarious contract work, isolation, and self-promotion. I hope that we might build mechanisms that enable knowledge producers to experience solidarity more easily, such as unions and cooperatives and more secure employment in academia and journalism. These organizations might, for instance, build new platforms where members can introduce themselves to their audiences in a space that, like Wikipedia, is neutral, trustworthy, and non-profit. In the meantime, however, I hope the commons will accept my apology and do with this page what it would like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntnsndr (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• {{ping|Ntnsndr}} Thank you for this. It is extremely common for people to act as you did early on in this article. It is likewise extremely rare for someone to make a statement such as this. I appreciate your candor. In the future, if there's anything that you think needs to be changed on the article, let us know here on the talk page. Ping me if you like, using the {{tl|ping}} template, and I will have a look. Thank you again, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• {{ping|Ntnsndr}} I agree with {{u|Hammersoft}} that it's refreshing to see your forthright description of your original motivation and clear acknowledgment of COI. However, looking at {{diff|Nathan Schneider|1214602003|1179613976|these changes by you in Nov 2023 and Mar 2024}}, I think you ought to better not edit directly. Instead, propose changes here on the talk page following the recommendations at WP:COIREQ. The reason is firstly that this article currently needs a lot of work to be brought up to the Wikipedia sourcing and style standards of the 2010s and 2020s, and secondly, adding new content that remains uncorrected will make the article even harder to clean up, decreasing the motivation of people who might be willing to edit.{{pb}}In fact, I would recommend that a priority would be to start a list of the strongest WP:RS as independent from you as possible that establish your notability. On a very quick browse, I see [https://web.archive.org/web/20111006035700/https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/occupy-wall-street-a-primer/2011/08/25/gIQAbX7oHL_blog.html The Washington] [https://archive.today/2014.05.03-165318/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/occupy-wall-street-a-primer/2011/08/25/gIQAbX7oHL_blog.html Post] by Ezra Klein that credits you as a good source on Occupy Wall Street; and [https://web.archive.org/web/20120919181451/https://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2012/09/high-rolling_ph.html The Boston Globe] appears to establish your Chronicle of Higher Education essay as being notable. A small proportion of the things that you believe are notable about you would probably be accepted in addition to what independent sources say about you; that will be up to the editors of this article to consense on. Boud (talk) 01:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)