Talk:Edwin Olson

Trimming contributions/refereed conferences/patents

Hi @Steverhard, pinging you as the main author of the article because I think the contributions/refereed conferences need a trim - we're in danger of trampling on WP:INDISCRIMINATE at the moment. You are probably in a much better position than I am to decide which papers Olson has authored and which conferences he's refereed are the most important and thus should be mentioned. I am also concerned about the list of patents - perhaps we could say instead that as of 2025 he has X patents in the fields of Y and Z? StartGrammarTime (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the entire list of patents, with references, is not necessary, and support a simple statement as StartGrammarTime has suggested.

Ditto the list of papers - this needs to be drastically trimmed and turned into a "Selected publications" section with only really significant (highly cited, award winning) papers in there. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm happy to edit. I haven't listed every article but I can review and limit to those most cited as a guide. Steverhard (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I have made some edits. Could you please confirm that I'm within the required parameters or whether a further trim is required? Steverhard (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I would trim further. My personal rule of thumb is a maximum of the ten best works, otherwise it just looks very close to a résumé and therefore rather promotional. Better to have only the real jewels in there, plus an external link to e.g. the research.com page. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

thanks I'll revisit Steverhard (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

further edits applied Steverhard (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I've limited the references to the principle topic of autonomous vehicles and robotics/path finding. They all seem useful and relevant to me and link to citations above 200. Steverhard (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Notability

@Steverhard, I'd also be interested in how you think the subject demonstrates notability. That is, is it through the general notability guideline or through one of the criteria of the subject specific notability guideline for academics? Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 07:36, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Of course. He is a well published academic and is still a professor at the University of Minnesota where he holds a lecturing position in the APRIL facility. That seems to fit within the guidelines for academic notables. I also note the number of citations against his publications and the fact that he holds a large number of patents obtained whilst at two companies; one research based and the other commercial. Google Scholar indicates over 12,000 citations against his papers. There are a number of YouTube video interviews with Olson from a variety of independent channels which implies his views are valued and would also cover the significant coverage requirement of notability. The sources I have quoted are independent of the subject and seem to respect his contributions. Steverhard (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

He is an assistant professor (unless I'm reading his bio wrong), and assistant professors have rarely - I'm not saying never - done enough in their professional career so as to be notable. Having a lecturing position is not notable for an academic. Patents don't count towards notability. YouTube is generally not considered a reliable source, and interviews in particular, as they are not independent, don't count towards notability. His citation record (h-index of 43) does look solid, but what I'm not sure of is how it stacks up against his peers - put simply, if his peers have h-indexes of e.g. 60, then 43 is not notable; if they have h-indexes of 20, then it is. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

He's still contrubitng to academic papers linked to the University and that does seem to meet the guidelines. He's definitely not tenured as far as I can see as that would conflict with his role at May Mobility. He's an adjunct professor at Michigan rather than an associate which is a more senior role. Ryan Wolcott is a peer at Michigan University and his h-index is 13. Maani Ghaffari is another peer at Michigan and his h-index is 26. Matthew Johnson-Roberson is a robotics peer at Carnegie-Mellon with an h-index of 41? I'm not sure where else to go with this really. The notability criteria seem low. Steverhard (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2025 (UTC)