Ladies, Wikipedia is Ours

Rogers Cadenhead wrote on Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales edits of his own biography. During the discussion, Rogers mentioned his own Wikipedia entry. I checked, and sure enough: Rogers has an entry. That’s odd, I thought. Many of the male webloggers I know have an entry in Wikipedia, but most of the women I know, don’t. I brought this up with Rogers and he noticed the same.

Why are there significantly fewer women? I think one reason is that we women are taught not to put ourselves forward. Men are complimented for tooting their own horn; making known their wishes; noting their own accomplishments. Women, however, are expected to be sweet, demure, and most of all, stay ever so slightly in the shadow. Well, unless we’re eye candy, in which case not only should we be in the light, we should be wearing as little as possible so that our ‘assets’ can be fully explored.

Besides, who are we to say we deserve an entry? After all, it’s up to those around us who are required by laws of nature to perceive our goodness and give us the reassurance we need–without our asking (because if we have to ask, it’s not the same). After all, we can’t be expected to have enough confidence in our own abilities and accomplishments that we don’t need external validation. A needy woman is a sexy woman.

Something else to consider: how many women would not want articles up at Wikipedia anyway? It is a rough and tumble world, where people will say nasty things about us. We are, after all, delicate by nature, and easily offended and it’s just oh so distasteful to have to brawl with those nasty people who are so mean.

We have bought into such a bill of goods. We think that change for women must come at the ballot box or on the job but it has to begin within ourselves. We have to, first of all, acknowledge that we are worthy people: not as employees, not as wives, and, especially, not as mothers. We, the persons we are independent of our relationship with others, are worthy.

The concept behind women and visibility isn’t limited to a one hour session at a conference in Texas. It pervades our environment; it exists everywhere we look. We can choose to talk about it, or we can choose to do something about it. A place to start is recognizing that we deserve recognition.

Ladies, ask yourself this question: If you feel that you’re as much of a public figure as Rogers, Danny Ayers, Kevin Drum, Kevin Marks, Dave Sifry, Andrew Orlowski, Dave Winer, Robert Scoble, Ben Hammersley, Marc Canter, Seth Finkelstein, and numerous other gentlemen of our weblogging acquaintance, leave a comment or send me and email and I’ll start you a Wikipedia page. You’ll need to give me some basic biographical information to start.

(I also hope that one of you will do me the courtesy and create a page for me, since it’s not the done thing to create one for ourselves. And if inaccurate information is added, or a non-nuetral POV is expressed, I will edit the entry. Oh, and it’s ShellEy Powers. I’m attached to that second ‘e’.)

If you do decide you’ve earned a right to a Wikipedia entry, you’ll have to accept the fact that people can and will add ‘stuff’ into your page. However, contrary to myth, if someone puts something inaccurate about yourself in your bio page, you can correct it. This doesn’t mean, though, that you’ll be allowed to dump the butter boat over yourself and make yourself into the next Princess Diane.

The Wikipedia editors are pretty ruthless: you’ll have to defend your page. They’re going to question whether you deserve the page; it will be up to you, then, to say, damn right, I do.

Ken Camp and Scott Reynman were both kind enough to add an entry for me (at almost the same time). It was immediately added to the articles to delete queue for discussion. People will add Keep/Delete votes with associated reasons, and in the end, it will be deleted or saved. This is how Wikipedia works. Now, we’ll see if it gets defended and remains, or ends up on the cutting room floor.

You can see the old discussion about deleting Rogers Cadenhead article.

A follow up post that discusses the ends and outs of deleting a wikipedia entry, including comments from Wikipedia authors.

This entry was posted in Society, Stuff, Technology. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Ladies, Wikipedia is Ours

  1. Lorianne says:

    I think it says something (I’m not sure what) that I’ve heard of only *two* of the famous male bloggers you mention. I’m assuming I’ve not heard of them not because they’re male & I’m female; I’m assuming it’s because they blog about technology & I don’t.

    I think there are all sorts of double-standards in the blogosphere, and only some of them are gender based. Your remarks about girls being trained to “make nice” remind me of what Virginia Woolf once wrote about the so-called “Angel of the House”: the feminine impulse to be polite and make sure everyone *else* is tended before oneself. Woolf argued that to write, she had to kill her own “inner Angel.” In a sense, she had to learn how to write like a man.

    So yes, women bloggers have to kill their own inner resistence to self-promotion…but. If you’re a blogger of *either* gender who doesn’t get the page-hits and/or media coverage that the Big Boys do–if you’re a blogger who writes about personal stuff, or local stuff, or stuff that isn’t Big Name because it’s not the stuff of the tech Movers & Shakers–you’re going to feel hugely presumptuous saying “I deserve a Wikipedia entry because I’m a cyber-celebrity.”

    So there’s certainly a gender dynamic here…but I think there’s also a certain insecurity among those of us whose blogs seem less “important” because we aren’t blogging about technology, politics, or other (seemingly) cutting-edge subjects.

  2. Shelley says:

    Lorianne, excellent point. My response in turn is that today, I’ll deal with the gender differences; tomorrow, and every other day after, we’ll have to challenge the dominance of subject in weblogging.

    As it is, I don’t consider Jeneane Sessum or Halley Suitt to be ‘tech’ writers or ‘political’ webloggers (though they write on both); but both would be excellent Wikipedia entries.

    If I add them, though, I’m pulling them into the murky world of Wikipedia, where anonymous people can say _anything_ about them. More, they’ll have to watch as I defend these entries. (Someone will say, “Who is this woman?”, and who wants to hear such as that?)

    Being recognized is not without cost. There are many webloggers who would rather gnaw their own foot off, then be ‘recognized’ in Wikipedia.

    PS I wonder what women such as Virginia Woolf and Dorothy Parker would say about all of this? It would make for an interesting dialog.

  3. jeneane says:

    I DAMN WELL deserve a wikipedia page. That’s Jeneane Sessum (NO “S” on the end). I’ll send you a bio – but highlights include:

    One of the pioneering women bloggers, class of 2001.

    Founded the first women’s open group blog, and shepherded its growth to more than 100 members (

    Founded the first team weblog on blogspot in 2001 – Gonzo Engaged ( – to discuss business implications of gonzo marketing

    Key in helping shape new media / blogging strategies for large enterprises, like Cox Communications), web 2.0 startups like BubbleShare, and indie consumer products companies like ElimiTaste gum.

    Blogs at

    Anyone want to dispute or spar about it, let’s get it on.

  4. Ken Camp says:

    I have mixed feelings about Wikipedia myself. I find it useful, but far from definitive, and definitely yet another old boy’s club.

    That said, I posted a page for Shelley because I do think she warrants it. Certainly as much as the little drivel posted about Scoble. I was suprised to see two people immediately pounce with comments. One suggesting deletion and one providing some support but suggesting it be restructured. Not being a Wikipedia maven, I did what I could with it and will just watch at this point and see where the Wikipedians go from here. I don’t consider myself qualified to say much more.

  5. jeneane says:

    THANK YOU KEN for adding Shelley–on second thought, I don’t think I merrit it, BUT that being said, neither do some of the men listed… i don’t get it.

  6. Ken Camp says:

    I know I don’t merit it. No delusions. My focus in life is very concentrated.

    I couldn’t even bring myself to create my own user page because I’m that casual a user. For me, this was the first time I ever edited or created an entry in Wikipedia. Could well be the last. My feelings about the whole thing remain mixed and it feels a lot like “feeding the machine” – not terribly unlike tagging so the search engines can use me to garner more profit by improving their quality.

  7. Shelley says:

    Well, I edited it to conform more to a wikipedia style of article. This is no insult to you, Ken. Thank you for starting the page.

    Of course, this isn’t ‘done’. I imagine the article will be cut.

    What I’m more interested in, is how many other women will step forward.

  8. By the way, I’m not notable for anything having to do with blogging. I’m in their category of “Bloggers” as notable-person-who-has-a-blog, not notable-person-BECAUSE-OF-BLOG. I’m notable for a decade of technological civil-liberties work, including an EFF Pioneer Award, for decrypting censorware. Plus I’ve been an expert witness in a key Internet censorship case, as well as the source of evidence for a library censorware case. And almost single-handedly winning a DMCA exemption.

    “If you feel that you’re as much of a public figure …”

    *Believe me*, it’s not a case of “feel”. If you are, you will KNOW IT! :-(

  9. Shelley says:

    Seth, my listing of each of you gentlemen was by way of example, not to disparage your entries. I am aware of your work.

    I didn’t want Wikipedia inundated with webloggers; but I do want to see more women step up for the recognition due them.

    I judged my own entry based on what I felt was some impact I’ve made on technology conference organizers when it comes to increasing the visibility of women at their conferences.

  10. Sour Duck says:

    (I wrote a thing here.)

    Jory, Elisa, and Lisa are public figures now and need to be in (whether they want to be or not, but I suspect they won’t have a problem or reluctance – good for them).

  11. Sour Duck says:

    “dump the butter boat over yourself and make yourself into the next Princess Diane.”

    :D I just read this on the second scan.

    “People will add Keep/Delete votes with associated reasons, and in the end, it will be deleted or saved. This is how Wikipedia works.”

    Sounds brutal. That reminds me, Kameron Hurley of Brutal Women should be in there.

    (I think. Now I have to get into “defending mode.”)

    P.S. I don’t think Dorothy Parker would’ve given a toss. She seemed to want to self-destruct, though, so not really a model for emulation…

  12. DaveP says:

    Huh. What about those of us who figure that ending up in wikipedia is about as desireable as getting into (another) FBI database?

  13. don says:

    As a non-tech reader of your blog, Shelley, I admire your skill with words and with photography. You provide entries on subjects that roam across all kinds of subject boundaries, powerful enough to compel me to return again and again. You also use photography in your blog with a style that I find quite impressive.

    What did it mean to live in mid-America in the early part of this century? Your blog helps provide an individual answer.

    I am not sure that wikipedia editors or readers care about such a judgment, particularly about blog writers, (we deem things of literary value when they have aged), but I’d hate for you to be noted or judged only for your technology prowess.

    You are fiercely independent, which is not the same as fearless. I bet you feel fear and other emotions as much as any of us. But you step out front with intelligent opinions, and I find that more important than the items that wikipedia readers/editors will consider important for your entry.

  14. Shelley says:

    Sour Duck, I wonder if a Wikipedia how-to would be helpful for people to add entries? And thanks for link to the Brutal Women weblog.

    DaveP, ah, I’d be messed just from this weblog.

    Don, thank you. I have no worries if it’s deleted or not. My point more is to show that women have to demand recognition; we can’t expect people to give it to us. It’s a difficult and delicate line to walk, though.

    But living in mid-America in the early part of this century is going to form the focus of most of my writing after the New Year. That and tech how-tos (not tech who whats).

  15. Sour Duck says:

    “Sour Duck, I wonder if a Wikipedia how-to would be helpful for people to add entries?”

    Most definitely. I’ve just buggered up your entry a bit, apologies for that and I’ll clean it up later, or someone else will. (Was trying to add “Feed the Feeds” post as it’s a great example of tech parody.)

  16. Scott Reynen says:

    Wow. In addition to adding your page, I added one for Halley Suitt (deleted with explanation “nn bio”, whatever that means), Caterina Fake (copyright violation), and Fiona Romeo, which has somehow managed to make it past the amazing Wikipedia police.

    This game has too many rules. I give up.

  17. Shelley says:

    Scott, Halley’s was deleted that quickly? They shouldn’t be deleted that quickly.

    If you copied Catarina’s bio, that could be a copyright violation. Or if not, someone else may have in the past.

    Update I don’t see a delete discussion page for Halley, which makes me wonder if she had not had one deleted previous to this. I may try adding her myself, see what happens.

    Second Update It was a Wikipedia editor, and it was for submitting a bio that didn’t provide any information about why she should have an entry.

  18. Scott Reynen says:

    I copied bios from for anyone who didn’t already have a page and had a bio mentioning some public presence beyond a weblog. If I misjudged what makes one significant enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, so did the creators of several other webloggers’ pages. If I misjudged copyright law (I see no copyright notice on, and thought the bios were public information), well, I’m not a lawyer. In any case, it is apparently not a trivial task to create a Wikipedia page, so your “Wikipedia is ours” proclamation may be a bit premature.

  19. Shelley says:

    No, it isn’t trivial to create an entry. I do think Halley’s was deleted too quickly. And therein lies the challenge: have women been added, but male Wikipedia editors been quicker to remove the women then the men?

  20. Shelley says:

    To be honest, I see little interest among women in Wikipedia entries.

    I wonder exactly what the women who discuss not being ‘seen’–I wonder how exactly they want to be seen? In some tasteful venue? Some place where they can control what is or is not said about them?

    Lately, I’m beating a dead horse. I’m demanding things for women, they don’t want. I am wasting both my and all of your time.

  21. Ethan says:

    Lately, I’m beating a dead horse. I’m demanding things for women, they don’t want. I am wasting both my and all of your time.

    I think you’re being a tad hard on yourself. You published this post at 10:10am today, and now at 3:23pm, you’re throwing in the towel. 5 hours does not a social revolution make, especially during a holiday week (ish).

    (Clarification up front: Your “call to action” was posted today; I am aware that you have written other posts about Wikipedia.)

    I’m thinking the how-to document is a good idea. I think that some people are put off by Wikipedia and believe that it is a “read-only” set of documents, and don’t realize that anyone can edit them.

    Of course, just because anyone can doesn’t mean that anyone will. And despite the aggravation, this has been enlightening to get a glimpse of the behind-the-scenes workings of Wikipedia. Reading through your eponymous entry, I am wondering what the base standards are for inclusion, since writing lots of tech books isn’t enough, apparently.

  22. Shelley says:

    Ethan, my comment was inspired by more than this entry. But yeah, we’ll see how it goes over a few days. But my question does remain: how do the women who have expressed concerned about being invisible want to be ‘seen’?

    There are guidelines that authors with a readership of over 5000 are eligible for entry. I know my ASP book sold many times that, and even the RDF didn’t do so badly in the end.

    There is one test, the Google Hit test. If the subject gets ‘a lot’ of hits on their name in Google, they’re eligible.

    Luckily this isn’t the Technorati Hit test.

  23. jeneane says:

    Oh shelley, you don’t have a say on this topic–this topic has a say about you. Silly. ;-)

    If we get to the granularity of halley and I, then why not just put everyone on wikipedia, and then doesn’t it just become whateverpedia?

    anyway, i hope you make the cut shelley. if you do. (hee).

  24. Sour Duck says:

    Ethan, bless you, you make several very good points:

    “I think you’re being a tad hard on yourself.”

    (Try: I think you’re being hard on yourself!)

    “I’m thinking the how-to document is a good idea. I think that some people are put off by Wikipedia…”

    Count me as one of those people. I initially dislike the lack of control, but am more than willing to pitch in. Besides, it would be fun to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, I cite it often enough…

    I suspect other readers here at Burningbird would also consider this post a plum reason to learn more about Wikipedia and how to edit entries. So it’s a win-win situation.

    “Reading through your eponymous entry, I am wondering what the base standards are for inclusion, since writing lots of tech books isn’t enough, apparently.”

    Yes. I’m left wondering who’s in charge? How does it run? Isn’t there a giant editor in the sky with a pencil the size of the Space Needle that oversees all of it? And if not, won’t Wikipedia just reflect the prejudices of the dominant culture? Has this conversation gone on elsewhere and am I just looking clueless now? ;)

    P.S. – It’s okay to get in a blue funk sometimes. But realize that it is just that – a blue funk.

  25. Shelly, the vote on your page is currently 8-0 in favor of “Keep”. It’s a shoo-in, maybe even a shut-out.

  26. Shelley says:

    Jeneane, thanks, but this isn’t about me. It was never meant to be about me. It was about showing women how they can, in ways big and small, increase their visibility. How we don’t have to be given recognition, we can take it ourselves.

    But every time discussions of this nature pop up, somehow it becomes about the person who brings it up. I really don’t care about the Wikipedia entry. I genuinely don’t.

    But I do want to know: ladies, what do you want? Do you want conferences where only women are present? Are you only interested in recognition from the A list males?

    Do the majority of women really not want to be seen? That’s not a bad option–but this changes the dynamic of the argument.

    We don’t help ourselves. Or maybe, I have it all wrong, and what I’ve been doing really hasn’t helped.

  27. Shelley says:

    Seth, thanks. And thanks for those who voted to keep. And Sour Duck — your point is good, I need to dwell more heavily into Wikipedia philosophy when writing a tutorial. I actually find it rather fascinating myself.

    But this really isn’t a blue funk–at least, not as I understand ‘blue funk’. I am beginning to think I have a lot of things wrong. And where I’ve thought I’ve helped, I’ve not.

  28. Sour Duck says:

    “But every time discussions of this nature pop up, somehow it becomes about the person who brings it up.”

    Time to don your fireproof suit, then. ;) C’mon, I know you have one. I’ve got to clean out my closet and find mine, as well.

    “ladies, what do you want?”

    I’m guessing women want the goodies. The goodies are money, power, social status, respect from your peers, to be listened to, to have a chance to make a contribution. A voice. A platform. Etc.

    The doling out of “the goodies” is mostly controlled by men. Yeah, you can go knit in the corner and claim you really like knitting, but how many men are sitting there with you?

    “Do you want conferences where only women are present?

    Sometimes. Blogher was a helluva lotta fun. I believe the men who attended also had a good time.

    “Are you only interested in recognition from the A list males? “

    Well that can’t hurt now can it? I got an email from Ben Hammersley the other day and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t get a buzz from that.

    But the same is true of getting an email from yourself. So there you go.

    (I’m switching to decaff.)

    Don’t get discouraged, persist. Or take a break. But please don’t do the switcharoo so quickly – I got whiplash just then…

    (Sometime after 4:31: Apologies from me – I’m filling up the comments too much as well. Will shut up and listen now.)

  29. Shelley says:

    SD, no you’re not. You’re always interested and have thoughtful replies.

  30. Dori says:

    Based on Wikipedia’s own guidelines, you qualify, so I voted that your article be kept.

    But then again, based on Wikipedia’s own guidelines, I more than qualify, and no one’s ever created a page for me. My husband offered to once, but I believe that that’s also suspect.

  31. Shelley says:

    I’ll create one for you Dori.

  32. Anne Z. says:

    I don’t know what the majority of women want. I myself feel ambivalent about visibility. I want it on some level or I wouldn’t have a blog and be commenting on yours. It’s certainly a great thing for me if other women are very visible. It makes me feel more confident and comfortable. But for me to be visible when it’s not the norm can be painful. I had a highly visible role in my last job before I quit to stay home with my kids a few years back. It was both positive and negative–I wielded a great deal of organizational and technical power and yet I felt beaten down by the criticism I received and by the need to act in ways that felt foreign to me.

    However, I’ve recently become aware, mainly through blogging, that I have responsibility for making things better for women and men and that may mean exposing myself to criticism and doing things that feel uncomfortable. One very important factor that raised my consciousness was your blog. Even if you decide to put down the torch now to take a break, you have made a difference. I can’t pick it up from you–it’s too damn heavy and I’m no Wikipedia candidate–but perhaps I can light a little candle from it and make sure it grows bigger over time.

    Maybe changes like these take longer than a generation. I know I’ve been pleasantly surprised at comments on your blog and other places from men recognizing this problem of women’s place in computing–I don’t recall hearing much about that in the early nineties when I started programming professionally. Since I’ve been out for five years, I can see that things are better now than they used to be. What will happen in another ten years? I think it’s going to be better, though we might not notice the minute changes as they happen.

    What I want to say most is thank you, Shelley, for what you’ve done and for what you stand for. I will always remember how when I came back to tech I found someone who cared whether women were in the game or not, who cared about making it better, and who motivated me to stick my neck out a little further than felt comfortable.

  33. Ken Camp says:

    I’m just weighing back in for a moment since I feel partially responsible for adding fuel to the fire. I’d never created or edited a Wikipedia entry before and Shelley’s note gave me motivation, partly fueled by a wonder who would come edit and comment what I posted. I wasn’t surprised overall and what followed, although I was surprised how instantaneously the Wikipolice slammed my entry into the to be deleted queue. My naivete at the enviroment that’s never impressed me as being contributor-friendly.

    I’ve learned that Wikipedia, among many other things, is a pain to deal with. It’s unlikely that I’ll enter or edit there in the future. As a new user who’s maybe a little tech savvy, it was frustrating and a general PITA.

    I also feel, as a man in technology, that we generally suck at incorporating women into many of our efforts. That’s a generalization, but as a 52 year old white male, one I’m qualified to make.

    Jeaneane, we do all have entries already. You spelled it wrong. In the world live web Wikipedia is spelled G-o-o-g-l-e. You have several entries. And when I want live data, that’s where I search. It’s where most people search.

    I don’t refute that Wikipedia has value. It clearly does. But it’s a self-policing lunchroom bulletin board with some people participating who are promoting their own agendas. Ok, that’s the web in general. So it’s another tool. Useful for what it’s worth. Then again, so’s LinkedIn. Just another tool that’s sometimes the right one for the job.

  34. Shelley says:

    AnneZ, thank you for that lovely note. And I really enjoyed the exchange between you and Michael.

    Well, dear hearts, looks like my Wikipedia entry will survive–thanks in part for those of you who said, “What the hey! More’s the merrier.”

    Ken, you are absolutely right. Most people will search on Google for a person, rather than Wikipedia.

    I do think that Wikipedia has value. I think it’s an excellent way for differing viewpoints to be heard, obscure facts uncovered, and new knowledge discovered. From the experiences you and Scott and others have had, though, I think there needs to be a consistent procedure developed for adding and maintaining entries. For instance, why was my entry given a deletion page, but Halley’s immediately deleted? It made no sense.

    As for this being a way to help women gain more visibility? Probably not as good as other methods available to us, such as linking, referencing, and so on.

    It was an interesting experience. And hey, I’s famous now. I’m on Wikipedia.

    I’m real.

    But not guaranteed to be factual.

  35. I did some amplification and cleanup of your entry, as well as adding a few relevant wiki links (semantic web, RDF, etc.).

    I enjoyed the exchange with Anne as well.

  36. Phil says:

    Since I’ve been out for five years, I can see that things are better now than they used to be. What will happen in another ten years? I think it’s going to be better, though we might not notice the minute changes as they happen.

    I don’t remember the 60s, but I do remember the 70s – which is worse, because it seemed then that everything that had been achieved in the 60s was safe, could be taken for granted & assumed as a starting-point. And it turned out that some of what people thought had changed hadn’t changed at all, and some of the things that really had changed were changed back… It gets frustrating. Some things have changed, but there’s always a battle to fight. Or, to look at it another way, there’s always a battle to fight, but some things have changed. William Morris:

    I pondered all these things, and how men fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men have to fight for what they meant under another name

    (“Other men”, indeed…)

  37. My name is mentioned on the podcasting page (unless it’s been edited out by now) but I fear that if a Wikipedia page for me was created, it would ruin the credibility of my tagline “Toiling away in obscurity…” Oh sure I was in on the early days of weblogs, podcasting, and videoblogging, but so were many other people. I will attempt to celebrate my insignificance while not promoting myself…

  38. Darryl says:

    I don’t know wikipedia etiquete *but* i’m happy to say I’m now a suspected sockpuppet!

    I took the liberty of commenting on possible sockpuppets on this AFD and IMHO they are all real users: or someone is patiently taking months to build up sockpuppet accounts. I don’t know who Shelley Powers is but she obviously influences “lurkers” on Wikipedia. Shelley, well done! Samw

  39. Shelley says:

    Pete, you want I should destroy your obscurity?

    One could make good money exhorting funds under threat of adding one to Wikipedia, couldn’t one?

    (PS, for those who just turned into this channel, the above is a joke.)

    Darryl, it’s funny, I just wrote the first of my Inside Wikipedia posts on this very issue.

    Congratulations on sockpuppet status!

  40. Just stumbled on this which may be interesting in the context of the discussion: the Wikipedia entry for Blogebrity: “This is not an inclusive list of every ‘Blogebrity’. Rather, it is a list of the bloggers they cover that have pages on Wikipedia, or who are closely associated with a website that has a page on Wikipedia.”

    FWIW, I think I fall into the category of someone who (mostly for lack of time and enthusiasm for the undertaking) would rather not have to “sweat” having a Wikipedia page. That said, as Seth indirectly points out, many folks who are included, through no act of their own other than the notoriety of the trail of breadcrumbs that is their life, probably feel similarly about it.

  41. TDavid says:

    Shelley writes: “There is one test, the Google Hit test. If the subject gets ‘a lot’ of hits on their name in Google, they’re eligible.”

    Just curious what number you consider ‘a lot’ Shelley? I see 253,000 results for “shelley powers” in Google. That seems like a lot to me, although I remember Google trying to say searches for ‘podcasting’ were broadcasting when it had some 400,000+ search results. Now that there are millions and millions of results, they don’t say it any more.

    I wonder if that also could be an indicator: if Google acknowledges as a viable search term without making alternate suggestions?