Read on Twitter
How did Theresa Greenfield— locked in 2020's closest Senate race—not get a Wikipedia page until a few days ago? The answer involves a small civil war on Wikipedia, a personal intervention from Jimmy Wales, and as usual gender politics. Latest for Wired: https://www.wired.com/story/the-senate-race-that-could-be-pivotal-for-america-and-wikipedia/
How did this happen? Non-insiders may not realize that Wikipedia has a vast internal bureaucracy, which polices the creation of articles on all subjects. This includes political candidates. Gatekeepers on Wikipedia have significant power to decide which candidates get a page.
These gatekeepers biggest weapon is "notability." Just like the curatorial function of the Met or Smithsonian, Wikipedia must decide what's notable—what's worth preserving. That's a good thing: It's why you can't have a page about your dog or fantasy football team on Wikipedia.
But when Wikipedia enters politics, the stakes increase: Which candidates get their own page? This is a harder question than it seems. There are thousands of fed/state/local contests each cycle. Regulating quality of those articles would be a huge task. And pages are permanent.
Another reason not all candidates should get a page: Fringe candidates could use it as a platform . Imagine a white supremacist candidate 5th or 6th on the ballot, but nevertheless is a "candidate" for office. Does that person deserve a permanent page in the world encyclopedia?
Finally, there's fairness: Who is Wikipedia to decide what's fringe and what's notable? Early in Wiki's history, supporters of the Green Party, Cannabis Party or Rent Is Too Damn High Party complained that a "meh" Democratic challenger got a page, but their candidate didn't.
Thus Wiki created a rule: *All* candidates are inherently non-notable, unless they prove otherwise. 'Prove otherwise' means candidates must *already* be notable for something other than seeking office—like holding prior office, or being a business maven. Enter Theresa Greenfield.
Theresa Greenfield is unlike any candidate Democrats have nominated for US Senate in recent memory. She has no political experience and is generally not famous for something. Compare this to Mark Kelly (astronaut) John Hickenlooper (governor) or Sara Gideon (ME House speaker.)
Greenfield's campaign is *about* how normal and relatable she is—and the extraordinary fact that she is now a toss-up Senate candidate that could hand Senate control to Democrats. But what happens when the very thing that makes you notable clashes w/ Wikipedia's notability rules?
Some worry that Wikipedia's rules also create a big advantage for incumbents—who are already "notable" after all—over their challengers. Says @fuzheado: “We deemed [challengers] not worthy of an article until they take office. And that’s really bad.”
For many challengers, the *only* way to be considered "notable" is to win your race. This invites an obvious issue: gender. It appears that women challengers are less likely than men to be meet the notability rules—mainly because men candidates have often held prior office.
Take the 2018 midterms. Of the 52 challengers considered notable enough to have Wikipedia entries before their elections, about 70% were men & 30% women. Theresa Greenfield epitomized this divide: She's never held office and was the president of a small real estate firm.
In 2018, among the 10 challengers already notable on Wikipedia for their private life, 8 were men: A liquor store magnate; the brother of Mike Pence; a former NFL wide receiver; and a CA man who won the lottery.
Meanwhile in 2018, among the women *not* considered notable were a Navy Commander, an Air Force Captain and sports company executive, an architect of the auto bailout, a law professor, & an Iowa state official. All received their Wikipedia articles only after they won.
Wikipedia's rules aren't inherently colored by gender. Senate cand. Al Gross didn't have a page either. But the rules disadvantage challengers, and challengers are more likely to women. @fuzheado: "In an attempt be fair, we have made something really unfair in the process."
The Greenfield dispute grew so heated on Wikipedia that Jimmy Wales personally intervened, asking Wikipedians to consider how Greenfield "fell through the cracks."
Lih @fuzheado thinks this will be a "seminal" moment for Wikipedia, which will be known as "the Greenfield Problem." How Wikipedia assigns notability to political candidates will probably be a big debate of the 2021-2022 cycle. https://www.wired.com/story/the-senate-race-that-could-be-pivotal-for-america-and-wikipedia/
