Wow
It looks like Google tends to hire very distinguished employees. Keep the streak alive :-)
[Signature removed] |
Looking through those, you recognize how deep Google's ties are to the open source community: lead Firefox folks, Pidgen's developer, Apache leads...
Good to have the power of Google behind FOSS |
The link to this guy's page is not working : Steve Lawrence |
Awesome stalker tool! Erp, I mean research tool... |
Anyone up for writing the Adam Lasnik article? He deserves one! |
Without Adam Lasnik this article is useless. |
Basically some of these people don't work anymore at Google. They worked there, not currently.
BTW I still can't believe I was reading the wiki of a Googler and Ionut wrote a news about him. :-O |
Brillient People List...Keep going on....Best of luck |
As far as Adam Lasnik goes, I think the only prerequisite Wikipedia has for adding a person is how much of a "public person" (e.g. celebrity...) they are. I think this is mostly in order to protect the privacy of private people. |
I'm honored by the mention here, especially given the caliber of the Googlers (and other folks) currently with bios in Wikipedia!
And Philipp, you raise an interesting issue. While I recognize what I believe is indeed a Wikipedia rule (must be a "public person"), I think what's even more interesting (and perhaps controversial) is the distinction about public/private content within such an article.
For instance, I'd be very comfortable having professional and even personal notes within a Wikipedia page about me (e.g., did such and such for Google, held such and such role with past jobs, has blogged about hobbies including [xyz])... but I'd be less comfortable having stuff cited that was distinct from my career or my publicly-expressed personal life (e.g., a note about my first girlfriend, personal health issues, etc.).
So while I think the public/private test is an interesting and valid one in considering whether someone's bio is an appropriate addition to Wikipedia, I feel that a related public/private test is also worth evaluating with regards to the content in the bio itself. Luckily, though, I haven't seen this be a frequently contentious issue on Wikipedia so far :)
P.S. – While I haven't had time to delve into this, I do hope there are also some great bios of noteworthy folks working for other search engines. I notice, for instance, that the talented Tim Converse (former Yahoo guy, now working for Powerset) doesn't have a bio, which seems unfortunate. |
When celebrities talk about the pros and cons of fame they always mention how people are too much interested in their private lives, how they won't let them alone on the street ever. I think every famous person's dream is to only be a celebrity in regards to their job – say, to attract movie-goers, because they're an actor – but crowds mostly ignore this dream I think :)
> that the talented Tim Converse (former Yahoo guy,
> now working for Powerset) doesn't have a bio, which
> seems unfortunate.
There is another page titled "people by company" and I think if Google has its place, so should Yahoo, tho I have no clue how to add a category in Wikipedia (or if mere humans are even allows to do that):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_by_company
However you can already start a Tim Converse page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_converse&action=edit |
Philipp! You forgot to capitalise his last name! SHAME on you! Okay, just kidding. Here's a more correct, yet still empty link for an empty Tim converse page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Converse&action=edit
|
And yet, in the previous post, I forgot to capitalize Tim Converse's last name. I am sooooooooo smrta...samrt....SMART.
|
Heheheh...
Well, OK, in my defense I didn't capitalize anything, I just searched Wikipedia for [tim converse], and as there was no page existing, that was the "create that page" link *Wikipedia* offered to me, so I right-click & pasted it (now you can call me a drone :D). |
