Do you have a wikipedia page about yourself?

[Wahoo Redux]

I keep hoping someone will write one about me...but I obviously haven't impressed anyone enough. On the other hand, there are certain things I'd rather people didn't know.  Nothing criminal, mind you, just embarrassing dumb stuff.

[youllneverwalkalone]

OP, it's not really about what one wants cause Wikipedia's rules for notability will in most cases prevent you from doing that, not to mention that writing a page about yourself is highly frowned upon. So the chances of you successful doing that unless you are a high ranking Wikipedian or use a paid service are almost non-existant (unless you are genuinely famous, but if that were the case you'd probably have a page already).

I'm not sure I completely agree with this: academic fame and general fame are quite different things. There are researchers who I think would absolutely merit a page, but don't have one -- or have one that is only very sparsely populated. In those cases, expanding on the details may be quite valuable. Even more so if you can link the profile to related research, so that people reading about topic A end up on their profile page.

You are not engaging with my point, and the fact that you liken a WP page to a personal website or a paper repository for personal promotion shows that you don't fundamentally understand how WP works.

You are right: academic fame and general fame are quite different things. WP focuses on the latter, so even established researchers cannot in most cases open pages about themselves (again, unless they know how to game the system).

[craftyprof]

At one of my research groups, we even have a day during the year in which volunteers create Wikipedia entries for feminist scholars, because feminist scholars are not recognized enough and do not compose a significant part of Wikipedia entries. Many very eminent or emerging scholars that have accomplished amazing stuff do not have a Wikipedia page, when they truly should. And it is unfortunate.

I think this is the solution - making pages for others. I've seen a number of discussions on twitter from scholars and volunteer wikipedia editors trying to correct this imbalance (@jesswade is one).  When I reach the level of warranting a wikipedia page, I don't think I'd make my own.  It might be acceptable to edit a page that someone else has created... maybe.  But creating an account for the sole purpose of editing your own page seems tacky.  So you probably need to signal boost some other underrepresented scholars while you're there.

[Hibush]

The issue relevant to many of the comments have to do with the criteria for having a Wikipedia page. While people who write on Wikipedia are called editors, there is no board of editors. A Wikipedia editor might be that kid the the third row of you 10 am class, the bus driver, your provosts spouse... Who knows?

But there are guidelines for what or who merits an entry, namely notablity.

Here is the standard as it pertains to self-promotion, a common violation.

The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.

An academic needs to have been written about in the popular press. Academic achievements like publishing well-cited papers, or being written in your professional society's publication do not count. Somebody outside that sphere needs to notice, and to write about you without having their arm twisted by you.

There are ways to game the rule to make the criteria lower. One can also make an effort to achieve that notability through public engagement.

Lots of people create Wikipedia pages of non-notable things and people. They end up with a "Marked for Deletion" tag in a few minutes.

[namazu]

There are specific notability guidelines for academics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) 

Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.

• The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
• The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
• The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
• The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
• The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
• The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
• The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
• The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

They don't necessarily have to have had extensive coverage in the popular press, though many will.

[adel9216]

There are specific notability guidelines for academics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) 

Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Academics meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of WP:BIO or other notability criteria. The merits of an article on the academic will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable. Before applying these criteria, see the General notes and Specific criteria notes sections, which follow.

• The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
• The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
• The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).
• The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
• The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
• The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
• The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
• The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

They don't necessarily have to have had extensive coverage in the popular press, though many will.

I know, off the top of my head, multiple academics who fit many of these elements (and have had extensive media coverage) but do not have a Wikipedia page. There's tons of articles/interviews online about them as well, but no Wikipedia page. And they're all women (or racialized women).

So it proves the point i was making above about scholars from minority group struggling to be recognized for the quality of their work.

[namazu]

I agree that many scholars who do important work have not been recognized, and that focused Wiki Edit-A-Thons can be useful in remedying the problem.

[youllneverwalkalone]

I agree that many scholars who do important work have not been recognized, and that focused Wiki Edit-A-Thons can be useful in remedying the problem.

I am not quite sure what kind of recognition a WP page would bring to an academic to be honest. Your peers wouldn't put much stock in it anyway, and the general public is unlikely to seek out that oage or take notice of its content.

[Morris Zapp]

If one were hypothetically going on the job market in the future, would having a Wikipedia page be perceived as a detriment, do you suppose?

[Hibush]

If one were hypothetically going on the job market in the future, would having a Wikipedia page be perceived as a detriment, do you suppose?

If you are notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, your relevant credentials will be far more effectively presented in conventional venues.

[namazu]

I agree that many scholars who do important work have not been recognized, and that focused Wiki Edit-A-Thons can be useful in remedying the problem.

I am not quite sure what kind of recognition a WP page would bring to an academic to be honest. Your peers wouldn't put much stock in it anyway, and the general public is unlikely to seek out that oage or take notice of its content.

The value wouldn't be in impressing your peers; the value would be in bringing better representation to the List of Basketweaving Scholars (e.g.).

When the general public or aspiring students wonder who the important people in the history of basketweaving scholarship are, or they want to learn more about the people associated with a discovery/theory/movement/innovation/what-have-you, they'll be able to see not only the celebrities and attention-seekers, but also the quietly-influential people, and those whose important contributions were not acknowledged or did not get the attention they merited in their day.  (Of course, the "notability" criteria serve to replicate that problem, to some extent.)

If you don't have a personal Wikipedia page, then it's harder for me to acknowledge your contribution when I write the Wikipedia page about An Awesome New Direction in Basketweaving because I have nothing to cross-link to. At least in my experience, some of the fun/interest of Wikipedia is in stumbling upon ideas/people/etc. indirectly by following links from other articles.

(And for the attention-seekers, or simply those who value public engagement, having a Wikipedia page may help journalists find you quickly.  Presumably a well-designed personal website optimized for search engines could have some of the same effect. [?])

I don't think a Wikipedia presence is likely to help with an academic job search, for the reason Hibush mentioned, but I don't think it would necessarily be detrimental, either, unless it were blatantly self-promotional or you'd been mired in controversy/scandal.