This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all
list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
We had 3 spacewalks in 2017 already. At
2017_in_spaceflight, people keep track of them. Unfortunately here the table format is different. I suggest to use the table format from the yearly spaceflight articles, then we can just copy it and don't have to manually add spacewalks in more than one article. --
mfb (
talk)
20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
List of spacewalks since 2015. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
I have just modified 2 external links on
List of spacewalks since 2015. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
This seems to be undisputed so I added it to her
page right after the note about the first all female spacewalk. A nice twist, and something that deserves to be noted.
Jardenberg (
talk)
12:29, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
She used the cited source to make corrections to the article, making it more accurate. I don't think this is the reason those policies were put in place. The intent of the policy means more than following it to the letter.
Cited sources work. Since the edit is well worded, accurate, and functional to improve the encyclopedia, in this historic instance "ignore all rules" seems more than adequate.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
14:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
There's no rule, even, to ignore: editing with a conflict of interest is not disallowed. While there's certainly better practices that could have been followed, like making it extra-clear that she has a direct interest in the subject matter, the edit made is fundamentally in line with policy, as outlined here by Darenwelsh. Anyone who's concerned can follow any further edits and intervene as needed; the relevant approach here is less
ignoring rules and more
assuming good faith. Astronauts help drive knowledge with exploration and (zero-G) experimentation; cooperation with our more documentary contribution to knowledge is a welcome partnership that we should encourage. {{
Nihiltres |
talk |
edits}}15:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank you
Nihiltres , I could have not said it better. All of us waiting for this historic edit were very worried bite-y patrollers would come by and revert, claiming original research, COI, etc. This is why I created her account and added the confirmed flag. I ran this by other admins and we all agreed the “gravity” (pun intended!) of the situation warranted this. Christina did something very special for us, and I hope she continues to contribute. We are a bit short on editors who are astronauts, to say the least :) I also think joke edits are not welcome in the mainspace, but if
you honestly felt there was a COI problem then that’s understandable. Fortunately the edit wasn't reverted, the COI tag was removed, and I see a lot of warm welcomes at
User talk:Astro Christina. So I think it went pretty well. Thanks to all for helping us look good, sincerely. — MusikAnimaltalk06:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Ironic that, given the claim the spacewalk involved "routing a cable on the Destiny Lab module" is not supported by the cited source, in any other context the edit would probably have been undone for a lack of verifiability and the editor responsible scolded with a template for adding unsourced material. –
Teratix₵13:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)reply