Wikipedia’s Notability Policy: What is it and Why It Must Go

A simple Google search will reveal that Wikipedia’s notability policy has been the subject of plenty of discontent, as far back as at least 2006.

This discontent is often dismissed by Wikipedians as simply arising from editors who are disgruntled about their hard work being removed, or a person or phenomenon they love being deemed non-notable by others. But as we previously discussed, this policy actually has severe social justice implications, working to exclude minorities in the otherwise open world of the internet.

Wikipedia currently requires that the subject of an article is ‘notable’, which is a concept that is vaguely defined.

Notability doesn’t mean celebrity obviously, or Wikipedia would only have biographies of celebrities, which would make it much less useful. Anecdotally, the criteria (when it is actually enforced) seems to be three or more references from reputable sources, independent of the subject, which discuss the subject in depth. This seems like a valid and objective criteria on the surface (if you ignore the fact that it is somewhat selectively enforced). However, the criteria essentially makes Wikipedia a tool of the privileged to exclude the less privileged, with important cultural consequences. We all know that those who are rich, well connected are much more likely to get substantial media coverage in mainstream press than those who are not. As a result, cultural icons and contributors who are less privileged, along with their ideas, are mostly excluded from Wikipedia. In other words, Wikipedia is using (and selectively enforcing) a policy that biases the whole project to the rich and privileged to keep the disprivileged out, playing a very important part in maintaining the boundaries of privilege in the otherwise open world of the internet.

Wikipedians who support the Notability policy contend that such a policy is required so that Wikipedia doesn’t have profiles about your local bus driver and his dog, defeating its purpose as an encyclopedia. But this is like opponents of marriage equality saying that marriage equality will lead to people marrying their dogs.

If the Notability criteria is abolished, it can be replaced by a Cultural Contribution criteria, where inclusion is based on contribution to the total culture of humanity, i.e. where a person has made a substantial contribution to human culture, for example defined as one book (whether traditionally published or self-published) or one music album or equivalent. Whether this contribution has been picked up by mainstream press should be irrelevant. Even if a cultural work has only inspired a hundred (or even a dozen) people, it doesn’t mean it’s irrelevant. Also, with the long-tail and long term archiving properties of the internet, such a work may continue to be discovered by an endless trickle of readers decades into the future. Wouldn’t it be helpful if they could look up the author and find a brief description of her life and a list of her other works?

As previously mentioned, substantial discontent about Wikipedia’s notability policy goes back more than a decade now. So why has no action been taken?

A lot of the discontent seems to have been generated by people whose hard work, perhaps on a biography of a writer or artist who they really respect, have been removed without recourse. They take to their own blog or a discussion forum to vent their disappointment, but then feel like they just have to move on with their lives. After all, it’s not easy to take on Wikipedia’s policies. It has been observed that those in agreement with zealously defending the policies are self-selected to remain in Wikipedia, while those who disagree often feel defeated and leave, meaning that Wikipedia’s policies, however outdated or unfair, are calcified and destined to remain intact.

I agree that change solely from within is unlikely. We need to raise awareness of this issue and work for victory in the longer term. The marriage equality movement took decades to get to where it is now, and only survived for long enough to finally thrive because activists kept raising awareness under difficult circumstances. I have faith that if we do the same regarding this issue, we will be able to change things in the end.