 | This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia is the universal encyclopedia. We should not pick favorites among races, genders, or nationalities, or among social and cultural classes either. |
[Need some sort of punchy lede here]
Arguments like these don't usually get a lot of support (of course they are not phrased so openly):
- "Meets WP:GNG, but only women read this novelist. Look at where these reviews are in: Feminist Literature, Smith College Review, Ms. and like that. Chicklit, delete"
- "Meets WP:GNG, but only Black people listen to this hip-hop singer. The only detailed material is in DJ magazine and Ebony and The Source and so on. I'm sure you're getting my meaning. Urbancruft, delete.
- "Meets WP:GNG, but only gay people care about this artist. Interviewed in Gay Life. Most reviews are in mags like Rainbow Pages and Out. Biography in The Advocate. You getting our drift? Swishcruft, delete.
However. Basically similar arguments like these do get a lot of support (again, not phrased so openly):
- "Meets WP:GNG, but only janitors read this. Rabblecruft, delete"
- "Meets WP:GNG, but only graduates of public colleges care about this. Peasantcruft, delete"
- "Meets WP:GNG, but only people I don't wish to associate with like this. Fancruft, delete"
We're going to call this what it is: class warfare. We know what the Wikipedia editor demographics are, and so we expect this to a degree. A good degree. But we're hoping a time will come when they get less. That's why we're here; that's why we're writing this.
So, you can't explain to a fish that it's wet. You can't explain to someone with an entrenched bourgeois worldview that they're subject to bias. "It's not bias, it's just how normal people think and feel. Everyone I know agrees!" Some people can't get beyond that; it's not that they won't, it's that they can't. We understand that people have limitations in this area, but that doesn't mean we have to like it, enable it, put up with it, or not ask these people to pipe down and stay in their lane.
We're calling out class bias right here and right now, and we aim to continue.
The Wikipedia is not an academic entity, never was, was never intended to be, and shouldn't be. Academics don't use encyclopedias, students and regular people do. The famous founding statement was "Let's make the internet not suck", not "Here's a chance to teach λαουτζίκος about what is important, in simple words". Different things.
But even so, WP:NACADEMIC specifically allows exception to our notability rules for people who wear tweed jackets with leather elbow patches, smoke pipes, and use "aegis" and "anodyne" in conversation. And that's fine Are we complaining? There are scores, maybe hundreds, of thousands of two sentence articles with one ref about individual species, snails and fungi and whatnot, found in one tiny remote place. That average one reader per day, if that. And other Fancy People topics. And fine. Do you see us attacking those articles? Let a thousand flowers bloom.
There's no notability exception for WP:SWAGMAN and most other entities, they have to earn it. And that's fine too. As long as they're allowed to. As long as fair play, competence, and honesty are the watchwords, fine. However, when the petite bourgeoisie ("a social class composed of semi-autonomous [cube farm drones] and small-scale [district managers] whose politico-economic ideological stance in times of socioeconomic stability is determined by reflecting that of a haute ("high") bourgeoisie with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate" -- after Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) start to swarm, well, that tends to go by they wayside. If it didn't, we wouldn't have information that meets reasonable standards regularly attacked, swarmed, and destroyed by people with a toxic class-ridden agenda. Attacks on the veracity of reliable sources, attacks on articles that meet the WP:GNG, PRODs of articles that very clearly do not qualify for PRODding, stealth attacks via conversion to redirects or partial merges. If it wasn't for rank snobbery we would not see these attacks.
Would we. Would we.
Further reading
edit- Warburton, Nigel (2012). Philosophy: The Basics. Routledge. ISBN 978-0415146944.
- Douglas Kellner. "Nietzsche's Critique of Mass Culture". Illuminations: The Critical Theory Project. UCLA. Retrieved June 12, 2021.
- Bourdieu, Pierre (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674212770.
- White, Mark D. Irwin, William (ed.). Iron Man and Philosophy: Facing the Stark Reality. The Blackwell Philosophy and Pop Culture.
- Uslan, Michael (2010). Archie Marries Veronica/Archie Marries Betty (Archie, #600–606). Stan Goldberg, Bob Smith, illustrators. Harry N. Abrams. ISBN 978-0810996205.
- McMahon, Barbara (2003). The Tycoon Prince. Harlequin Romance. Harlequin / Mills and Boon. ISBN 978-0263179224.
They're all good! Bourdieu in particular has interesting things to say; it's rather dense, but that shouldn't be problem for people of high culture. If you don't have a copy at hand (it's fine, not everyone has completed their library yet), I'm sure the Widener has one.
Further viewing and listening
editAnd much else! These are all good! There's a big world out there, and maybe Benjamin Britten and Lemmy are swapping notes with Maxim Gorky and S. Clay Wilson. Don't be bound by your class cultural prejudices. Or, if you want to be, fine, but don't try to force our readers to be like you. Is that such a big ask. They are not just your readers, they're our readers too. Don't mistreat them in the service of your personal bigotry and we'll get along fine.
Do, and we won't.