Wikipedia Notability is Obscuring Important Discussions About Reliable Sources
Revisiting Wikipedia Equality from another angle
Seven years ago, the Wikipedia Equality project (WikiEqual) was launched, to campaign for an end to the Notability criteria in Wikipedia. At the time, we noted that Wikipedia’s Notability criteria has led to the exclusion of many voices and viewpoints, and gives undue credibility to ‘mainstream’ viewpoints found in the mainstream media, which often made it there because of financial support rather than true merit. This, we argued, would essentially amount to reinforcing the corruption of the fairness of the marketplace of ideas by big money. The most common objection to our point of view was that the Notability criteria is inherently linked to the Verifiability criteria, which in turned demands that multiple ‘reliable sources’ are necessary for all Wikipedia articles.
At the time, our argument against those who tried to justify Wikipedia:Notability on the basis of Wikipedia:Verifiability was that, at least in some cases, the latter could be satisfied without the former being satisfied. In addition, we argued that Wikipedia:Verifiability should be retained and strictly enforced, because otherwise Wikipedia would cease to be an encyclopedia. However, the fact that Wikipedia:Verifiability could be satisfied without Wikipedia:Notability, at least in some cases, means that the Notability criteria is an additional layer of gatekeeping, and one that might not be truly objective and fair. Indeed, some Wikipedia editors have observed that the Notability criteria has been used by deletionists to target subjects they don’t like for deletion.
The important fact here is that Notability has been used to obscure genuine and important discussions about what constitutes a ‘reliable source’. Simply declaring that mainstream media is a ‘reliable source’ and, for example, user-generated media as not reliable is not good enough, because it simply isn’t true. Some things that appear in mainstream media are there because people with an agenda have paid huge sums of money for it. This doesn’t make it any more ‘reliable’ than user-generated media. The general public are already losing faith in mainstream media, and for a good reason. For example, recently I pointed out how the mainstream media is encouraging polarization in the debate over trans issues, because clickbait outrage sells. In contrast, a personal blog without this kind of financial incentive would indeed be more ‘reliable’, at least in this case. This just shows how the ‘mainstream media equals reliable’ mindset is a major fallacy indeed. And the Notability criteria, by excluding topics not covered by the mainstream media from even being included in the first place, prevents this discussion from playing out in full.
Note that I’m not saying that because mainstream media is not inherently reliable, we should give up on the idea of what constitutes a ‘reliable source’. After all, I still believe that Wikipedia should not be referencing personal blogs dedicated to the promotion of conspiracy theories, for example. Reliability is important. It’s just that we need to start having a serious discussion about what actually constitutes a ‘reliable source’, and this could even vary depending on the context. Nothing should be considered ‘reliable’ or ‘not reliable’ by default.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory and The TaraElla Story (her autobiography).
