Talk:Sophia Bekele

Tags - continued

This is just the consensus that has developed over the years. See WP:PILLARS. Every project has its own scope and policies, and these are the ones that Wikipedia uses. :) If Bekele still wants the information out there, I am sure she could add it to one of the other wikis out there, such as the ICANN Wiki which I see she has been editing. :)

In terms of the Wikipedia article, I have gone ahead and condensed the article quite a bit, and removed a couple of the tags. However, more cleanup is needed, especially of the links at the end. Also, could you please ask Bekele for her birthyear? Based on the other dates in the article, I am guessing that it is around 1970, but it would be nice to have something exact. Also, please assure Bekele that when I removed information from the article, it is not because I doubt that she did these things. It sounds like she has lived a very full and interesting life. However, for the article here on Wikipedia, we have to stick to only what is published so far. But more can definitely be added later, when more is written about her in the future in other newspapers and magazines. I am sure she has many interesting stories ahead of her. :) --Elonka 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka: I see most of the editing you have done. Sophia has also read it. She says there are a lot of inaccurate information such as 'upgrading the IT in Parliament" etc, and the work that her company has done in Ethiopia, and her involvement in th country as well as her age.... you also removed other notable achivements such as the stock market and ICANN work. This was also published and within Wiki guidlines. I would like to clean up and update the information within the same format you have used. Please be patience with me. I have learned your your wiki policies , the only issues I see now is that you and I may differ in what is considered notable and I may ask your help in explaining that. Finally, if the wiki bio you are editing is not based on the original bio that you assumed i.e " famous persons bio", then we may have to settle for a profile, which is what most of her colleagues she says have done on Wiki. Let me know if that is also acceptable. Thanks Lashford (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely proceed, fix any errors which I may have made, and add any other sources that you like. I removed the stock market and ICANN work because I couldn't find any sources for it, but if you have something, by all means add it back in. Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by a "profile" instead of a bio, could you show me some examples? --Elonka 23:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka: Thanks for the encouragement. Ok, I will try and fix errors and add things on making sure that it follows the 'verifyable' policy you have. Sophia qoutes her colleagues at Ram Mohan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ram_Mohanand and Matt Cutts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Cutts as an eg. As i see for eg. Ram Mohan is listed as Business person etc..., maybe that is a better route if we want to avoid a bio type reporting, which gets into detail of her hobbies like modeling, golf, scuba etc.. which I personally did not thing require verification. I can see if she claimed to be a top model, but as I also see it printed in various places of her past bios and profiles as something of a minor mention in her life. Lashford (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Matt Cutts article was a bit weak, but seems to pass guidelines now. Ram Mohan's article, I think he's just been lucky. He's one of your ICANN associates, I take it? Looks like the article's been on Wikipedia for a long time, but it's in really bad shape. To be honest, if something like that were created more recently, it probably would have been deleted by now. It's fairly obvious that Mohan, or someone close to him, has been updating it. I know that people think they're being clever by logging on anonymously or using false names, but really, it's pretty obvious to experienced Wikipedia editors when we see someone updating their own bio. Especially when the bio is about someone in the IT scene. There are common "new editor" mistakes that are made, and we also see that whoever is making the changes, is obsessed with exactly one topic on Wikipedia: themselves and their own personal projects. See single purpose account. Anything that an account does on Wikipedia, we can look into the history and see everything they've done, forever. It's all public information. And when an account works on only one or two articles, that is usually (not always, but usually) a strong indication that there's a conflict of interest involved. --Elonka 02:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka: Thank you again for editing. This is really a great excercise in editing and I am learning to become a good editor perhaphs. I understand your comments on the "new editor" syndrom, but it is hard to transition to another topic when I have not done this right, including the inconsistant 'verification' profiles that I see on many other wikiprofiles that I brought to your attention above. I guess it depends on the editors. Once I can do something with a breeze, including the referencing, which was a bit of rock climbing for me, then I can get into something else. I just saw your profile actually, which is impressive. You have done this for long and seem expert at it, so I was glad to know that my article is being edited by a professional. I notice you are also a world traveler as sophia, unfortunately, her world travel has not been published!  ?

Please note that I may have removed the articles requiring "citation needed" voluntarily, cause it makes no sense to leave it with the remark until we get you requirements fulfilled.

But since you have made it a wikiethiopia project, can they not verify that her family ownes all these businesses and her share ownership in Addis? It should be a public record over there.

You also deleted her current work experience along with the citation of the 'ICANN press realease' on her biaography. I have learned from Sophia that she is appointed to all the leadership positions after she fills out a proper application and verification is made by the institutions that she has worked at those places. Is there any reason why you or wikipedia does not feel the ICANN press release is not a credible published source? They infact wrote this first hand, although similar one was published after.

You have changed "notable" to "Business" achivement. My argument here will be that what was notable is the principles of what she lobbied for and won. it was not a business that she achived, since she has won previous contracts before, it is the "higher ideals" that she won, i.e the complaines, her lobbying and her fight for the principles of tranparency and accountability etc.. in a rampant corrupt business environment.

Finally, how does wikipedia select its editors for reviewing an article? i.e are the editors required to be familar with the subject matter i.e business, IT, so as to analyse the subject properly and give it the value it deserves or is it a random selection of who has time? Based on your answer to sophia's colleagues I sent you profiles for, it seem that you think they are bad and do not comply, but there are many like that...people who are engaged in their line of work and producing and really that what is not considered 'notable' by any standard, but progressive responsibilities. Also not every comments and statements are required to be referenced. The rules may have changed recently for wikipedia as you said, but one may think that sometimes their companies are sponsors of wikipedia and so no one says much.

Thanks for your help again, i will keep trying:-).

Lashford (talk) 06:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am hoping to get more attention from the WikiProject Ethiopia folks. If they can find more sources, that would be very helpful. However, as with everything else on Wikipedia, it's all volunteers here, so it really depends if someone wants to take the time to do it or not.

Regarding the ICANN work, much of it seems to be sourced to things like mailing lists or the ICANN wiki, neither of which are considered reliable sources. It's just not acceptable for Bekele to create her own biography on the ICANN wiki,[1] and then try to use that biography as a source for Wikipedia. It actually surprises me that she'd want to do that. Isn't that the kind of thing that she's been fighting against in her crusades?

Regarding the word "notable", and other adjectives, it really doesn't matter what we argue here at the talkpage. What matters is what third-party sources say about the matter. I know it's a bit difficult to understand, which is why I'm trying so hard to help. Wikipedia articles don't necessarily need to be written by experts or people familiar with the field, because we're not trying to provide original research here. Instead, the scope of Wikipedia is to summarize information that has already been written in third-party sources. Anything that hasn't been written about yet, shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Does that make more sense? I know it seems counter-intuitive to how other such sites work. For example, in the outside world, authors are expected to write their own biographies. In fact, if an author asked their editor, or a venue manager, to write a bio for them, it would actually be considered quite rude! However on Wikipedia, it is the opposite, people are told to avoid their own biographies. I know it seems backwards, but there are good reasons for the policy, primarily because of how much spam flows in to Wikipedia every day. There are teams of Wikipedia editors who do nothing but delete articles, thousands at a time. I am not exaggerating: Thousands of articles are deleted every week. Thousands are also created every day, and there's a net gain, as about 1,500 - 2,000 articles "stick" each day. The current status of the Sophia Bekele article is probably enough to get it to stick, but it is still precarious, and someone else could come along and tag it for deletion as "spam" or "self promotion". If they did, the article wouldn't get deleted on the spot, it would get sent to an articles for deletion discussion. But trust me, Bekele would not find such an experience pleasant. The culture of editors here has certain kneejerk reactions on certain types of articles. One of those reactions is about spam. Another one of those (sometimes almost irrational) reactions is about self-promotion or COI.

As for how editors are chosen to review an article, there is no formal process, it's really just "who shows up". Some articles get lots of attention, some get very little (such as for your associate Ram Mohan). If an editor feels that they genuinely need more attention, they can go through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. They can do such things as file a Request for comment, post on a message board such as for Biographies of living people, request opinions on the reliable source noticeboard, request an administrator's attention, and so forth. But my honest advice is that you not try one of those methods, because the first thing that happens when someone files a report, is the complainer's history is looked at. So people would look at your contribs: Lashford (talk · contribs), see that you were a single-purpose account, and would probably jump to the "self-promotion" assumption. And if you were really unlucky, your article might get drawn into one of the "wiki battles" that's always raging in this community of over two million articles. For example, some of the conflict junkies might take an interest, and would then try scanning the internet for anything that they could use as sourced "dirt" on Bekele. They would seek anything negative that anyone had ever said about Bekele, to add it to the article. Then other of their usual opponents might take an interest, and would come to the article to try to enforce the biographies of living people policy. Your article here might then get caught in a tug of war which would have little to do with Bekele herself, and more about wiki-politics, and I assure you that it would be a frustrating thing to watch, especially if it escalated even further, but I don't want to go into elaborate scare tactics scenarios here.  :) If you're interested though, I could point you at a couple articles that have been in a state of open warfare for years.

Regarding your last point about whether people might get preferential treatment because their companies are sponsors of Wikipedia, I can assure you that that's not the case, and in fact is probably the opposite. Remember, all the participants here are volunteers. No one's being paid, no one's worried about "losing their job", and no one's "following orders" from an authority. Instead, the community manages itself.

If you do feel that I am not handling your article fairly, and would like a second opinion, you are welcome to request the assistance of other editors. The best places for you to post might be at one of the following noticeboards: Biographies of living people, Reliable sources, or Conflict of interest. You might also wish to post a direct request for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia. --Elonka 11:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka- Thanks for the continued work. I see it is not easy and it takes a lot of time as well!! I read your detailed response and I appreciate the clarifications.

Regarding ICANN work, again I want to state on behalf of Sophia that 'http://nomcom.icann.org/candidate-bios-2005.htm' is written originally by ICANN. Then it has been used on ger various bios. That means the information is verified by ICANN befre she was appointed as in cheking her refrences. It also meets the criteria of wikipedia in that it is a published document. It is your decision. I will try and find another publication that could cite that that is independent.

Re: notability, I understand the clarification, however, I belive I saw similar article using the word "notable achivement: which I will try and find. No problem.

Re Editors: I already see this when one googles sophia from your colleague User talk:Hobartimus - Wikipedia.... " is he one you describe as 'conflict junkie', I know you two took turns to edit the article, I would appreciate if he could delete the article that is now showing up on goggle, it would be nice. No need to get there. The explanation is clear as to why it occured. I think I alreday have seen where sbekele had gone into that excerse in the past where one wnats to delete and another wants to keep. It isunfortunate that wars of the wikipeople and the politics there. But if one looks at at wiki as press, well, you know what they say bad press is still a press:-) I get surprized how the average person, especially living in urban areas and who use the internet a lot are too tired of information junk. I do. We all try to do our best in life, but if one is obsessed or is addicted to bring people down!, what can I say, "self promotion" is not necessarily bad, especially amongst business people, most everone would do that given the parameters, however, the "demotion of others" is considered unethical. I thank you for warning me, however. We d not want to get caught up in politics!!! I hope I am also doing well in my editing. pls give feedback. thanks Lashford (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka- You must be busy ..did not hear from you for a while! I hope I was doing well. In any case I saw this old article you revised on google. Because of the DOB and 'single' status showing, Sophia said she is recieving a lof of spam in her email. Can you help in removing it? Thanks and hope to hear from u soon

Sophia Bekele - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSophia Bekele (born c. 1970, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia) is a business writer and executive, who occasionally represents the Ethiopia private sector on United ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Bekele - 53k - Cached - Similar pages Lashford (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't have any direct influence on Google here. Instead, the Google bots (also known as web spiders) regularly crawl through the internet and look for updated content, which Google then incorporated into its search engine. Because Wikipedia is a very busy site, Google "spiders" through Wikipedia quite often. But it is sometimes unpredictable as to how long it takes before a change on Wikipedia, is reflected on Google. I have seen some changes show up within hours, and others take days. Ultimately, it's just a matter of patience. Whatever state that the Wikipedia article is in, eventually will show up on Google within the week. As for Bekele's birthyear, if she could just state what the correct year is, we'll go ahead and get the article updated. She is definitely allowed to change certain things in the article on her "say so", such as employment status and certain basic biographical information. See Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you. --Elonka 17:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

I see that some trouble has come up with the images being used, so let me see if I can help with that. Here's a gallery of what's currently in the article:

• Bekele in Kigali, Rwanda, October 2007
  Bekele in Kigali, Rwanda, October 2007
• Sophia caricatured in Addis Fortune, the Ethiopia business weekly, during her campaign for her contract bid reversal in 2002
  Sophia caricatured in Addis Fortune, the Ethiopia business weekly, during her campaign for her contract bid reversal in 2002
• 
  Bekele at the Rotary Club of Addis Ababa advocating for Solar Cooking, 2007
• 
  Bekele at Hong Kong airport, 2007
• 
  Bekele at ICANN

The reason that these images are being deleted, boils down to a concern about copyright violations. I can help "weight them down", but I need more information to do so. For example, on the Kigali photo, who is the photographer? Sophia, you seem to be trying to put this photo into the public domain, but are you sure you have the rights to it? Next, on the political cartoon, who drew it? The artist should receive credit for it. Who owns the copyright on the image? We might be able to make a case for "Fair use" since it's satire, but we still need more information about where the image came from. Next, on the "solar cooking" photo, you listed a source of "self-made", but how is that possible, when you are the subject of the photo? We need to know who took the picture, and we need to know that we have the copyright-owner's permission to use it, otherwise we can't use it on Wikipedia. Same on the Hong Kong picture, who was the photographer? Ditto with the ICANN picture. If you can answer these questions, I can help with the image licensing. --Elonka 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Bekele, I see that you have again added the cartoon image: Image:Fortune Newspaper caricature of Sophia bekele.JPG, which you have uploaded to the Commons and tried to claim that you own, and are placing it into Public Domain. Sorry, but you can't do that. The image is obviously not yours, the copyright most likely belongs to the newspaper, and/or the artist who drew it. Please do not try to appropriate other people's work in this way. This is a very serious offense on Wikipedia, and could result in your account access being blocked. --Elonka 17:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to help you here. I have asked Sophia to upload her images so I do not have to do it, becuase of the copy right. maybe I am giving her wrong instructions. Can she not upload all of images in the public domian. I also though 'self made' was for someone who is uploading it themselves not that the photo's are to be created by them. So then could you please help us out on how to appropriate this according to your policy. Thanks Lashford (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You can only place an image into the public domain, if you own the image. Just taking an image out of a newspaper, saying that you own it, and trying to place it into the public domain, Is Against The Law. I can help with some of the other images, but I need the information that I mentioned above: The name of the photographer, the name of the artist, and so forth. Sophia, if it helps, write to me directly (elonka@aol.com) and I can better explain image licensing. --Elonka 06:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Elonka- I understand you and sophia have touch basis on the pictures above. SHe said she forwarded the correct info for you. Can we now replace the photos that have licensing? Lashford (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear Elonka---- you are back!!... thanks for resuming editing. I was worried I lost you! I was away for a while, but i will look at your edits and advise with you if any corrections to be made! I am still confused where I should be doing this chat! hmm Lashford (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka...I was away for a while, but tried to update this page before but was blocked, and lost my edits...so i was waiting. Just so you know I made some edits, corrections and updates to the article. I hope you do not mind. It is there for your review again. To answer some of your Q's on the images, Sophia is working on it to provide infor. re: DOB and info on marital status, as I have explained before she was spammed with emails immediately after it was published last and she rather not those infor there, if that is ok with you. thanks agian will check in soonLashford (talk)

Speaker

Hi Elonka - Please advise on this... I had this on the article before --- Bekele was one of the speakers at the opening of Adoption of the Programme and Setting the Scene at the African Consultations on Internet Governance forum..... with the correct sources, which you deleted. Just for clarification purposes, Sophia was not a "panelist" on this forum as you said. She was one of teh main speakers on 'Setting the Scene" as published by the sources... and her project CIIN was presented in Kigali like what is also published. I just wanted to clarify to you, since you misunderstood. Please correct if you can, otherwise let me know what to do. Thanks Lashford (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Which source? --Elonka 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First, the same source you have there shows her as one of the key speakers, the second source that repeats the same is below, it can be goggled I belived.

second source is

http://www.uneca.org/disd/events/2007/ig-kigali/

Third is here

http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?hl=en&u=http://appablog.wordpress.com/&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522sophia%2Bbekele%2Bcontinental%2BIntegrated%2BInformation%2BNetwork%2B%2BUNECA%2Bkigali%2Bconnect%252%7Cpublisher=African

I hope this helps Lashford (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The UNECA source only confirms that Bekele was a speaker, one of four in the 8:30 a.m. timeslot. There's also a link to her PowerPoint presentation. I looked through the slides, and they're very nice, but I didn't see anything that could really be used as a source for the Wikipedia article. And just being a speaker at a conference, does not mean that she was a "key speaker". To make that kind of a claim, we would need a third-party published source that confirmed that her speaking there was genuinely "notable". Just having her name listed on a conference schedule isn't enough. Lots of people speak at lots of conferences every day, all over the world. Just speaking at a conference is not enough to justify inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. --Elonka 06:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if she is 'key speaker' or not. She was one of the 3 speakers at the "opening scene" meaning there was a panel session to follow and the project ideas that these three presented had significance enough to be part of the opening scene. To answere your question I did not say she was a 'keynote speaker' in my article, I described the event just like it is published from two difffent sources as the liks below, UNECA and the African press organization. you published her being a panelist at the UN general assesmbley, so it is in the same manner that I did this. Yes, people speak at may conferences, but what I was telling was a continuation of her career, the current work she is engaged in and which is also very important, the project is her own creation, she is not reporting a status on other people's organization like the other speakers. It is in all these context that I thought it was worth, so I wish you reconsider. it is not just other project, it is an important project for the continent.

Recently, in 2007, Bekele presented her company's project on connecting Africa at the "Connect Africa" summit in Kigali Rwanda. The summit was organized by the Government of the Republic of Rwanda, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the African Union, the World Bank Group, World Alliance of the United Nations ICT for Development the African Telecommunications Union, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and the World Solidarity Fund Digital under the high patronage of President of Rwanda and President of Ghana, Chairman of the African Union. Bekele was one of the speakers at the opening of Adoption of the Programme and Setting the Scene at the African Consultations on Internet Governance forum. ,. Her project commitments have been announced by International Telecommunication Union at the Kigali summit.. Lashford (talk)

I am not arguing whether or not the events occurred, I am arguing whether or not they were notable. Those sources are all primary sources. In order to be included on Wikipedia, what we really need are secondary sources, such as newspaper or magazine articles, or books that were written about what was said or done. Wikipedia is not a press outlet. I realize that you, Lashford (and probably Bekele), feel that the panel was an important one, and that Bekele's declared commitments are important, and they may well be important, but to be included on Wikipedia, we need proof that someone else felt that it was important. See Wikipedia:Notability, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Show me published articles that cover Bekele's financial commitment, and we can include that as well. But without that, all the press releases in the world saying, "This subject is important!" are not going to be that helpful. If Bekele wants the information on Wikipedia, then what she needs to do is contact reporters, even if they are just from local business newspapers, and explain what occurred. Then if a reporter agrees that it's important enough to write about, then we can use the reporter's article as a source, here on Wikipedia. But if you can't even get a local business journal to cover something, then it's probably not notable enough to be covered on Wikipedia. Now, the Connect Africa project itself may be worth a Wikipedia article. If you genuinely want to be helpful to Africa, I encourage you to try and spend time writing about something else than just Bekele. How about creating the Connect Africa article? --Elonka 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings fellow editors, ihave found that this speaking section needs alot of editing and have gone ahead to look at the various speaking engagements and listed them, perhaps more insight in needed in this section, i will be glad to help editing this page so that we can get all accurate information. JuanitaA (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Fick book

I requested a copy of David Fick's book Africa: Continent of Economic Opportunities, via Interlibrary loan. I see that there's a profile of Bekele on pp. 269-271, but to be honest, it looks like Fick requested a lot of profiles via email and just pretty much copy/pasted them into his book. In fact, some of the wording in the book seems to be pretty much word-for-word from one of the earlier versions of the Wikipedia article.

The book doesn't have any index that I can find... Is Bekele mentioned anywhere else? Or just in that part of the "East Africa" section? --Elonka 20:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I am a bit puzzled here. If you have seen the book yourself, then did you not find her name and her profile in pages 267-271? She is from East Africa, so yes, he put her acheivements in East Africa section.

second, you did say Wikipedia should be writing from published sources. So it is a published source I referred to. is that also a problem? Lashford (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, we need sources "that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It appears that Fick just published whatever he was sent, but he didn't actually check it. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. We can still mention that Bekele was included in Fick's book, but I don't think that we should be using it as a source to say with certainty that "Yes, Bekele did such and such." My guess is that Bekele could have written that she was in the Ethiopian astronaut program, and Fick still would have published it without question. :/ What this comes down to, is that if there's a major claim that is only included in Fick's book, but is not supported by any other sources, we probably shouldn't include it in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 05:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very critical analysis of Dave fick and his work. In fact, all of the stuff he wrote is also from a published source. Why don't you contact him directly and ask him how ghe does his research, instead of presuming or claiming this is what he did. " My guess is that Bekele could have written that she was in the Ethiopian astronaut program, and Fick still would have published it without question". Not to be harsh, but I think what you have just said is very insulting to the authour I tell you. If you really have read the article he wrote, it is mostly from the published sources. In any case Lashford (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Even a simple glance at that section of the book makes it clear that Fick was not so much writing his own analysis, as simply reprinting information from other sources. He even lists those sources in the book, such as "from press release", "from article", etc. As for the "astronaut" comment, I used that to make a point, not to imply insult to Fick, and if he did participate here and take offense, I would definitely apologize. Don't get me wrong, I think that Fick's book is a useful resource for the current entrepreneurial opportunities in Africa. But I do not think that Fick's book should be used as a reliable source for information about Bekele, if all that Fick was doing was reprinting information from other sources. --Elonka 16:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative towards this subject, however, is not Wikipedia doing the same as Dave Fick? reprenting already printed information. That is in fact your policy, right? so as to not take a risk of what the subject is telling you I guess, same as Dave fick. In fact, as psrt of writing excercise to wikipedia, I learned this is the biggest critisism people have on Wikipedia, that it is a reprint and not well researched and scholaristicaly written. Interesting tough, the argument seem to be now on who is credible, the author or the information on the reprintes, cause as both sources are doing, anyone can start a journal I guess, repreinting infromaation, with a focus of what they try to achive in their theses - hey this is a lesson learned for me as well.Lashford (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

References

This is just an administrative section so that references will display properly on the page

Addis Fortune

References for the Addis Fortune quotes were first raised in 2008, Addis Fortune do not keep an archive. Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Addis_Fortune for further details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekebia (talk • contribs) 12:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's ok to delete the quotes for now since they didn't have an actual source cited, but on the other hand, if someone did come up with a solid citation for them, whether available online or not, it'd be best to leave them in at that point. It's an important but little noticed part of WP:RS that sources have to be published and available in the world, but they don't have to be easily available and they don't have to be available online. Being in a library would be enough.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this. I was completely unaware of it, but now you have pointed it out it seems completely obvious that this would be the case! Thanks. --Elekebia (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Updates

Dear Elekebia Am looking at the previous changes done on this page and i notice that some details have been committed that are true about Sophia Bekele,For instance : this statement " is a woman of Ethiopian ancestry and has been a continuous resident of the San Francisco area for nearly two decades" is true, could there be a reason why this section was redacted,otherwise i think we ought to bring it back.Martin Otsi (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin and welcome to Wikipedia. In the infobox on this page it states that Ms Bekele was born in Addis, but I don't see a problem in mentioning her ancestry in the page lead. That Ms Bekele has been "a continuous resident of the San Francisco area for nearly two decades" may be true but it is a relative time reference which is not encouraged by the Manual of Style. I'll take it out and please could you state the date when Ms Bekele took up residence in the San Francisco area? Many thanks! --Elekebia (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the wording from the project will be introduced to "The project has been introduced and will be delegated for operation under ICANN’s new gTLD programme." Martin Otsi (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! Carry on editing! This article needs lots of work and it is good that you are contributing. I don't think you need to list your edits here as they are recorded in the article history, though of course this is the place to address future edits that may need some discussion. --Elekebia (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Writing

Elekebia applogies for the writing section i think I reverted it too long ago , but I have found proper valid sources that support it , However I believe the International section should not have been removed entirely since it had been approved earlier . I believe from the history the problems on the page arose when editing resumed in August 2012 by an editor that is believed to close to the source. The sources from the Fortune magazine and others are Newspaper sections that were scanned and uploaded online since they were in print and not online by the time these articles on the subject were being published JuanitaA (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Great! Let's talk about it here and get to work on the article! Feel free to put stuff back in, you are encouraged to do so, but please remember that the 'burden of evidence' is on the contributor. If in doubt bring it to the talk page, there are lots of eyes on this page and people will help. --Elekebia (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Elekebia I am then going to revert the article on International Work back to original where Elonka the wipedia editor approved it to. Then me and you can work on the article sections that started after August. I hope that works for you and I will start editing the new section tomorrow.These are Sections that have been written by Lashford had approved by Elonka JuanitaA (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Be bold! Try not to revert though, please contribute to the article and cite verifiable sources. Bear in mind that Elonka doesn't "approve" anything. She is an editor just like you and I (all editors in fact). I posted on your talk pages some links, it might be worth having at look at the ones that relate to sources. Enjoy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekebia (talk • contribs) 15:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of previously written article

Hi All- I a back after a long leave. I have edited this article previously and was blocked because of editing war, I was told. Can anyone tell me why an entire article that started back in 2007-08 was deleted after it went through a lot of work and consensus between the then editors? Until that is answered how could one move forward? Elekebia, I see you are still interested in these .africa related subjects. I also see you are the one that deleted the article and left only a single work profile of Ms. Bekele's career. Therefore, you have deleted all the previous career experiences of Ms. Bekele and any of the facts stated in the introduction section as well. The deleted version of Ms. Bekele's biography IMHO was well referenced and written, less my contributions which seem to have caused the problem for you? May I start with this question before wasting anyone's time going in circles on each other's edits? This way people will understand as to what the exact damage was before they try and fix it? Thank you Elekebia. I look forward to hearing from you.Tkamanzi (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tkamanzi and welcome back! An entire article was not deleted, content that was unsourced or had sources that were not verifiable were removed. Feel free to add material back in where verifiable sources can be cited. If you look at the edit history each edit has an edit summary which explains why a particular change was made. I hope this helps you in your understanding. --Elekebia (talk) 08:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

ok let me start from the beginning and get consensus here before adding material. what is not factual or problematic with the introductory paragraphs below. Elekebia what problem did you see with this. They are all introductory statement only for a biography, which is to be supported by the body of work with source materials correct? Sometimes it is hard to rewrite something that is already in good English form. Biographies start with high level introduction.

She is presently the Executive Director and Founder of DotConnectAfricaTrust (DCA), an organization that is spearheading the .africa Initiative. Pronounced as ‘DotAfrica’, .africa is one of the new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) that will be delegated to the root zone of the Internet Domain Name Structure (DNS) by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a US-based institution that is at the apex of Global Internet Governance. ICANN has a formal contractual relationship with the National Technology & Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the US Department of Commerce.

She was also the founder and CEO of CBS International, a private California-based firm engaged intechnology transfer to emerging economies, and SbCommunications Network, an Ethiopian IT company. In 2002 SbCNet was known for being successfully awarded a highly controversial bid for a government contract to build an integrated information network infrastructure for the Ethiopian Parliament. Bekele was also an elected member of the ICANN Council of the GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization), which advises on global internet policy. She has served on United Nations-sponsored committees, such as the UNECA-sponsored African Information Society Initiative (AISI), where she represents the private sector in discussions about the economic development of Africa. She is also involved with the creation of policies towards bridging the economic gap between Africa and other economies, through the use of Information and communication technologies (ICT).Tkamanzi (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This tells me a lot about DCA, DNS, ICANN, CBS, SbCNET and the GNSO. It tells me precious little about Ms Bekele. It is certainly too long for a "high level introduction". Are you able to provide references for any of this stuff? Many thanks, I would appreciate if you could indent your comments as we go along as it makes it easier for people to follow the thread( I have done it for you on this occasion) Thanks! --Elekebia (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Elekebia, I have seen longer introduction than this on biography. However, I have found all the references as below, the problem is that the introduction should not be referenced IMHO, the body of the article should be. I suggest we leave the introduction as is and use the references in the body when someone is writing the article and develops it. Otherwise it would like referencing it twice, but for now until we get to the body of article, we can apply it if you want. Here is some of what I have gathered so far. Certainly we may not apply all references as there may be to many. Thanks

She is presently the Executive Director and Founder of DotConnectAfricaTrust (DCA), an organization that is spearheading the .africa Initiative. http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/business/Announcing%20the%20birth%20of%20the%20dot%20africa%20generation20/-/2560/883240/-/11o2qf0z/-/index.html; http://www.rnw.nl/africa/article/a-dotafrica-generation-soon-be-born; http://www.domainmonster.com/editorials/dot-africa-application;http://newdomains.org/panelists/sophia_bekele;http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2010/09/rebranding_africa; http://amglobal.blogspot.com/2007/09/in-world-of-com-and-org-why-not-africa.html; http://nametalent.com/blog/?p=1430;http://www.nation.co.ke/magazines/smartcompany/Search%20on%20for%20African%20domain%20%20%20/-/1226/889028/-/fhc64c/-/index.html; http://www.domainmonster.com/editorials/dot-africa-application;

Pronounced as ‘DotAfrica’, .africa is one of the new generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) that will be delegated to the root zone of the Internet Domain Name Structure (DNS) by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN),http://www.domainmonster.com/editorials/dot-africa-application; http://www.voanews.com/content/bids-open-for-africa-internet-domain-name-132791578/159088.html, a US-based institution that is at the apex of Global Internet Governance. ICANN has a formal contractual relationship with the National Technology & Information Administration (NTIA), an agency of the US Department of Commerce. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2012/commerce-department-awards-contract-management-key-internet-functions-icann

She was also the founder and CEO of CBS International, a private California-based firm engaged in technology transfer to emerging economies, and SbCommunications Network, an Ethiopian IT company. http://cbsintl.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/prodigal-prodigy-cbs-international-sophia-bekele.pdf In 2002 SbCNet was known for being successfully awarded a highly controversial bid for a government contract to build an integrated information network infrastructure for the Ethiopian Parliament. http://cbsintl.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/is-justice-served-by-sophia-bekele.pdf Bekele was also an elected member of the ICANN Council of the GNSO (Generic Names Supporting Organization), which advises on global internet policy. http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04nov05-en.htm She has served on United Nations-sponsored committees, such as the UNECA-sponsored African Information Society Initiative (AISI), http://www.uneca.org/aisi/atac.htm; http://technologylink.typepad.com/files/working-technology-journal-articles-bet-journal-ggu.pdf; http://ictcreatives.com/component/k2/item/50-sophia-bekele-ethiopian-champion-of-the-dot-africa-initiative, where she represents the private sector in discussions about the economic development of Africa. She is also involved with the creation of policies towards bridging the economic gap between Africa and other economies, through the use of Information and communication technologies (ICT)Tkamanzi (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for an article rewrite

I think what has been done in the Global Speaking Engagement section above is really not how to write an article I am afraid, but just connect the references which did not have any notability on their own as Elekebia said.  In a living person biography what matters is not that the references are always notable (I have already read on notability), the actual article should be what is notable which may or may not include the reference. 

To be honest, I think this Ms. Bekele's work is notable from what was previously deleted i.e. her entrepreneurship, achievements and credentials are all notable, and so I guess the reason it was there before. Her achievement certainly did not start with .africa. I have Googled her name and she has tones of references to support her past and current work, the problem is that the whole article was not updated for years, evidenced by the dated pictures and so rewritten properly. Despite the squabbles I read on between the parties here and on the other related sites, maybe an opportunity has opened up to really improve this article.

For example one can see the person who was updating the article thereafter completion, particularly on the area you picked the previous writer was simply lazy or did not have much time and was putting bullet points as if to track progress but not really improving or updating the article in terms consideration for notability and continuous achievement she was making.

Unfortunately I work full time and will not have time to rewrite an entire article, which is perhaps what I really think is required, to include the work she did before the .africa project and make sure it is a holistic article that include proper referencing. The best approach I think is to do one section at a time like Tkamanzi posted below, but making sure that the article notability starts with the person's work and not about the reference. I will try my best to make the time to contribute my part. Sorry for being too long, but these are my thoughts. 12:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanitaA (talk • contribs)

Hi All- I must admit that am following on this issue critically much but am not able to respond on the comments immediately , however I agree that Juanita has tried to reach for the facts but there needs to be a better way to present facts, from what I see the links that have been provided by Kamanzi on the previous editing’s and also pasted on the talk page are good enough to be used for an the article, i followed on doing a Google search of the name Sophia Bekele, I think she has quite some credentials on the jobs she has done , that is definitely undeniable.

I suggest that the various articles when written be updated with the links including the speaking section which has links on the invitations means that Sophia participated and presented, i think it will be good to furnish the page with such facts as part of her work activities as entrepreneur, perhaps an opportunity to speak in UN General Assembly high level meeting to present your own work and not somebody else's is a recognition and notable, not a chance everyone gets anyhow. I believe that is why the previous editors already debated that issue and agreed to leave it as is, obviously there are many other speaking engagements she has.

For whatever reason I noted also that the current organization DCA she run has also been deleted recently and rewritten, perhaps the new one also issues with it and reported for Vandalism etc.. So now I see some sort of underhanded sabotage with what we are trying to correct now? and my question is if after we all collaborate and build an article who is to say that another people will not come and do the same after few years when she again gets involved in yet another project that may seen as controversial project. This is completely unfair. As of 2009 between Lashford and elonka and some other editors, there was consensus, and now it is all deleted? And again we are trying to recreate the same article with the same source again. What is the purpose?

I believe the sooner we can resolve this matters we should be happy to remove the tags, and probably start on improving on another page. Martin Otsi (talk) 04:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Many of the sources were invalid. Please look at the article edit history for the detail. As for Tkamanzi's notes on this page, unfortunately the references cited are not good enough for Wikipedia. Wordpress and typepad for example are not verifiable sources. The other sources cited stated the events were going to happen, there are no references that cite them actually happening. Thank you for your efforts! Elekebia (talk) 10:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

First off, I do not think that the entire two paragraphs under consideration should be dismissed, with a mention only of the one you think is not properly referenced with word press. So that is not good. One has also seen the second reference aside from type pad. It would have been good if you were specific. Thus, you only focused on what is not good enough for Wikipedia. However when you pointed out earlier on the Fortune Newspaper not keeping an archive, alf laylah wa laylah already informed you and suggested to you that "... sources have to be published and available in the world, but they don't have to be easily available and they don't have to be available online. Being in a library would be enough." This is a known fact that Newspapers from developing economies due to cost issues do not always archive or make it available in international libraries where you can find them, but does not take away the fact that the story was covered or significant and this was the basis of why the previous Fortune Newspaper related sources were acceptable to the then editors and they should not have been removed immediately without consultations, unless Fortune Newspaper told you they do not recognize the story covered or the Word press reference is false. Obviously CBS Company at the time made an archive to preserve the story, so I suggest that we restore any references related to the Fortune Newspaper story, as alf laylah wa laylah also suggested. I also like to know where you said “The other sources cited stated the events were going to happen, there are no references that cite them actually happening." Because there are no events sites in the above two paragraphs. I believe these are just summary of accomplishments or credentials and I do not see any events listed. I also invite others to comment on this Martin Otsi (talk) 09:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the contributor. "Obviously CBS Company at the time made an archive to preserve the story, so I suggest that we restore any references related to the Fortune Newspaper story, as alf laylah wa laylah also suggested." - No he didn't suggest this. Please reread what he said. Many thanks! Elekebia (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read what he said please. Can you state what your interpretation is ? if you are the one deleting this paragraphs please clarify .For me this is my understanding of what he said.Martin Otsi (talk) 04:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I can tell you he didn't suggest this "so I suggest that we restore any references related to the Fortune Newspaper story, as alf laylah wa laylah also suggested". I hope that helps, perhaps you can point out where you understand he did. Thanks for your comment! –-Elekebia (talk) 05:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

He did say this "I think it's ok to delete the quotes for now since they didn't have an actual source cited, but on the other hand, if someone did come up with a solid citation for them, whether available online or not, it'd be best to leave them in at that point. It's an important but little noticed part of WP:RS that sources have to be published and available in the world, but they don't have to be easily available and they don't have to be available online. Being in a library would be enough." A self sourced scan is not a 'solid citation' --Elekebia (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

"unless Fortune Newspaper told you they do not recognize the story covered or the Word press reference is false." By this logic I could add to the article a statement to the effect that Bekele was an Asparagus farmer, cite a "scan of a Fortune Newspaper" article hosted on my blog and it would be up to Fortune Newspaper to dispute this. This is ridiculous, as I have stated the burden of evidence relies on the contributor. —Elekebia (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Why would Fortune dispute it and why would you introduce ambiguous arguments. You seem to be the one disputing everything , instead of pointing the possible solutions. A pdf scan of a legitimate citation should be acceptable, less that "they don't have to be easily available and they don't have to be available online." And what is your solution if " Being in a library would be enough." cant fit the bill her. It is impossible and costly for these Newspapers to be archived in a Library. There has to be a solution. Can you find out Tkamanzi (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there is a solution. A scan could be provided that is hosted at a verifiable source, not on Bekele's own blog. How does that sound? Many thanks & keep up the good work! —Elekebia (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Global Speaking Engagements

I am not sure how notable simply speaking at an event is. This is an issue that has been raised in the past by Elonka around this article. I would like to invite some discussion around this! Elekebia (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

JuanitaA I do not think the title you chose is quite appropriate for a biography, maybe you can still use "Public Leadership Positions" similar like was there before and exclude the speaking engagement for another section and write only an article referencing the bullet points, as I think it is not a good article writing to list in bullet points, rather expand on the statements made. Maybe we can think of a title for the speaking section to consolidate her speaking engagements.Martin Otsi (talk) 05:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Thanks for the feedback, I agree with your main point, but feel that "public leadership positions" would not be appropriate. Speaking at a public event is not by definition a position of leadership. I also feel that the references are poor, as they consist of meeting agenda's or pre-event press releases, there are no references that were written following the event.

I am going to pull the section and hopefully Martin et al can come in and discuss this here. --Elekebia (talk) 08:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the section " Global Speaking engagements" under the title "speaking invitations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuanitaA (talk • contribs) 13:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I added this section under Speaking Invitations and you reverted it, could you please help m to know the exact problem so that we can make the section better , this way i will be able to correct the exact problems with the section 41.80.171.81 (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

She was a panelist at a high level meeting on Information and Communication Technologies (ICT),held by the UN General Assembly in New York. ,She was a speaker at a summit organized by UNECA, ISOC, African Union Commission and the government of Rwanda. ; ,"Internet Governance" at Golden Gate University in San Francisco.; , "How to build successful startups" at the Stanford Women In Business (SWIB) forum in Silicon Valley. and on "E-Government" for the UNDESA & ITU sponsored World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) forum in Geneva.. As Executive Director of DotConnectafrica and spearhead of Yes2DotAfrica Campaign, Bekele has given speeches, keynote addresses, lectures and presentations all over Africa and globally.

Hello 41.80.171.81 and welcome to Wikipedia! With regard to your contribution to this talk page discussion, lets start with the following points.

• a high level meeting : This is puffery. What was the meeting, why was it notable and where is the attribution?

• She was a speaker at a summit organized by UNECA, ISOC, African Union Commission and the government of Rwanda : So were many other people. Why was Bekele's appearance notable? Where is this attributed?

• How to build successful startups : The reference points to a 404 page (page not found).

• Internet Governance : According to the reference Bekele was to give a presentation in rooms 6209-6211 at GGU. She was to talk about herself and the projects she was involved in. This would only be notable if people showed up, it was good and someone wrote an article about it. Did they? If so where is the attribution? Simply booking a room then making a presentation is not notable for an encyclopedia.

I would suggest we address these first. Thanks for your input! --Elekebia (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

References