[Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...
Hi everyone, A few months ago Kelly Wearstler appeared - I think on this list. I had never heard of her, but, a small stink was being made on her talk page about whether to feature the Playboy model infobox for her page. So, I took a look, and of course got sucked in. I rewrote the article and blahblabhlah. One user was claiming that only claim to fame Kelly Wearstler has is being a Playboy model. Someone linked me to an interesting comment on some arbcom case. Now, I'm not into getting involved in the drama llama known as Arbcom, but I'm a bit irked by this guy's comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Kww/Questions#Question_from_Newyorkbrad And I'm not sure the protocol to going about handling this. It really irritates me, and now he's making some assumption that Kelly Wearstler herself would rather that her Wikipedia page emphasize her interior design business rather than her Playmate past. Uhhh...I wrote the page, to emphasize that she wasn't just a Playboy model (and consensus agreed on the talk page that it wasn't her main claim to fame). I also have NEVER MET KELLY WEARSTLER let alone do I own her books, nor did I know who she was (I'm just that involved in the fashion industry anymore.)... So, I'm fairly aggravated that this person is claiming that it was Wearstler doing the manipulating to the article and that by revamping the page I'm saying (or someone is) that being a Playboy bunny is inherently bad. It states it in the lead that she was Playboy of the Month, and there is a section for it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Wearstler Her clothing and interior design items are sold at Bergdorf Goodman (which is a VERY high end store - think 1% ;-) ) and she's published a number of books including a LA Times best seller. Obviously I'm pissed, so how does one go about saying Listen dude, I didn't write it FOR her, and if you don't think there's more to her, you need to really look a little closer, without getting sucked into an Arbcom drama? I try to assume good faith, that perhaps he's just misunderstanding something, or I don't know what... It also doesn't help that I've had artist biographies I've written lately speedy nominated because the speedy nominators 1) don't know anything about art 2) don't do their research properly. So yeah, I'm grumpy. Sarah -- Sarah Stierch Consulting -- Historical, cultural, new media artistic research advising. http://www.sarahstierch.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...
Thanks for bringing this to our (well, mine, anyway) attention. It was troubling when it first showed up on BLPN in May and it's still troubling that so many (all male, looks like) editors are missing the point of BLP and UNDUE and are so dismissive of the career accomplishments of the subject of the article, despite ample evidence of them in that article. We obsessively document career details of every minor voice actor and porn star, but dismiss career documentation from gold standard sources like The New Yorker and The New York Times when it comes to interior design. (This isn't a strictly gender issue, I've had the same argument with editors over literary theorists and fields like that outside of the tech/media orbit.) I doubt this would happen with the article of, say, a wrestler, where a bunch of male editors would insist that the sports career is utterly meaningless in the face of something like a brief cameo appearance in a Lars von Trier film. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Rob gamali...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for bringing this to our (well, mine, anyway) attention. It was troubling when it first showed up on BLPN in May and it's still troubling that so many (all male, looks like) editors are missing the point of BLP and UNDUE and are so dismissive of the career accomplishments of the subject of the article, despite ample evidence of them in that article. We obsessively document career details of every minor voice actor and porn star, but dismiss career documentation from gold standard sources like The New Yorker and The New York Times when it comes to interior design. (This isn't a strictly gender issue, I've had the same argument with editors over literary theorists and fields like that outside of the tech/media orbit.) I doubt this would happen with the article of, say, a wrestler, where a bunch of male editors would insist that the sports career is utterly meaningless in the face of something like a brief cameo appearance in a Lars von Trier film. Well, let's be fair - there are men on both sides, and as most Wikipedia editors are male I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from the gender of the editors :-P But I agree. It seems strange that an administrator and would-be arbitrator would argue that a 17 year old photo shoot should dictate the layout and content of an article, when the person has had many other notable and high profile accomplishments and coverage. But I've never really been able to get a good bead on Kww's thinking, so oh well. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Well, let's be fair - there are men on both sides, and as most Wikipedia editors are male I don't think any conclusions can be drawn from the gender of the editors :-P You're right, I should have qualified that a bit more. After all, I am a male on the other side of the issue. But a group of male editors are dismissing the documented accomplishments of a professional in a traditionally female-oriented occupation, insisting they are less important than her naked pictures. This could easily serve as a case study for a gender theorist. I don't think it's going too far to say that sexism, or at least male privilege and myopia, are in play here. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...
A little background: Kww, the candidate for arbcom about whom we are talking, was one of the users who insisted that it was a good idea to have a specific playmate infobox in the article on Wearstler. The box in question is one which makes the bust, waist and hip measurements the most prominently displayed data on the subject. It has no room for information on any non-Playboy-related facts (in other words: her entire career). After the box had been removed by me, it was restored by a couple of other users (an IP and a user called Dismas). After I had called attention to the issue at the BLP noticeboard (archive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive119#Kelly_Wearstler) -- the discussion is worth reading -- and Scott MacDonald, an admin long active in BLP issues had become involved, Kww appeared and restored the box again. I had discovered the article a while earlier and had considered doing something about it, but the discussion left a bad taste in my mouth and I decided against it. I later called Sarah's attention to it, after noticing that she both had an interest in art and design and was involved in gender issues on Wikipedia, and she did an excellent job of improving the article. A couple of days ago, after having looked at the Wearstler article again and checking the what links here for the page, I noticed that Kww had returned to the issue in a reply to a question in his arbcom candacy QA page. Here he states that ...being a Playmate of the Month is probably the most notable single thing she has ever done. Yet, the standard Playmate infobox was deemed too unsightly for her page, primarily because Wearstler herself would rather that her Wikipedia page emphasize her interior design business rather than her Playmate past. What I mainly find disturbing about this is Kww's obstinate and continuing unwillingness to recognize the testimony of all the sources cited in the article and in the BLP/N discussion as to the notability of Wearstler's design career. Despite her well-documented success in the design business, despite the quote from The New Yorker, calling her the presiding grande dame of West Coast interior design, Kww still feels that posing nude before a Playboy photographer seventeen years ago is more important. - Is this a bias against interior design or even design in general? Well, I just find Kww's attitude puzzling; it makes no sense to me. It certainly doesn't show the ability to read, understand and weigh sources that I would hope to find in someone who aspires to be on the arbitration committee (or even in an administrator). - Is this a gender issue? Well, in this particular case it certainly is. - Is bias against interior design in general a gender issue? That is a rather difficult question, but stereotyping interior design as female (and this stereotype certainly exists, as the BLP/N debate showed) arguably makes it into a gender issue. There are probably age-related biases involved in the coverage or non-coverage of a particular subject area. Even though I don't know if this applies in the particular case of the Wearstler article and the people involved in this debate, I suspect that it may have some relevance for the coverage of interior design in general. (Sorry for not threading properly, but I just subscribed and have only seen Sarah's messages in the web archives.) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler, again...
I don't think an Admin should get any more weight as any other editor working on writing an article when they are contributing to it in an editor role (like POV-pushing over an info box, to demonstrate the high esteem in which they place pretty breasts). If they keep overriding other editors when the consensus is going against them, then why not complain to another Admin about their behaviour and have them sanctioned for it? The Admins are not above the rules, and it should be pointed out to them more often by regular editors when they decide to act like assclowns. I have the impression that a lot of the bias problems, whether sexism, elitism, racism, etc., whatever the expression of the bias, a lot of the time the root problem is all about inflated egos. Little tin god syndrome. Some people contributing to Wikipedia set themselves up to be an expert on a topic, say Widgets. It doesn't matter that they are really not a world expert on Widgets; they will shout down anyone else who challenges their POV or their perception of themselves as World's Foremost Authority on All Things Widget-Related Because They Control the Wikipedia Article on It and Therefore Influence All Global Knowledge On Widgets Sadly, as long as they can succeed at shouting down other contributors by abusing the system (using WP red tape and bureaucracy to their advantage), they are in fact kind of the owner of the WP article in Widgets, and in practical terms, they do have an overly weighty influence over world knowledge of widgets. I'd like to see the WP red tape streamlined, for sure... When it comes to writing an article on anything that might be perceived as less important to the male-dominated WP editing community than say Human Penis Size (one of Wikipedia's most-read articles), I take a few steps to try to make it less justifiable for any jerks to try to have it deleted. My main tactic is quantifying the subject as much as possible. A lot of guys think in terms of How long? How many? How often? How far? So, give lots of numbers: she earns $XX a year, the movie was seen by XX million people, the book was on the NY Times bestseller list for XX weeks, the song was Number 1 on Billboard for XX weeks, she increased sales by XX% last year, she has businesses in XX countries, she sold X units this year, etc., and cited the numbers properly with reliable sources. I know it's a double standard in demanding more extensive justification for a women's topic (or a minority topic, or a global south topic, etc.), but some people are idiots, that's just the way it is. Another good tactic is to include an official institution of any kind as a source of info on the subject -- is it possible to connect the article in any way to a museum exhibit? Or a university course, publication, etc.? Has the woman ever spoken at a large conference, or has the topic been the subject of a conference or lecture somewhere? Has the woman been cited as a possible expert source by another writer, in a book, newspaper article, interview, documentary, TV program, etc. (which would make them notable)? Hth... Audrey OttawaAC___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler
A few weeks ago Kelly Wearstler was brought up on list regarding Playboy centerfolds. An argument was taking place on her talk page between two users - one an advocate for using the Playboy infobox with chest size as the infobox for Wearstler, a world famous fashion and interior designer (to be honest, I had no clue who she was until I researched her, heh). I snuck in and added a normal biographical infobox and Wikipedians proved the Playboy user wrong - he had declared that the only information he could find online was content about her being a Playboy model (which she posed for once, as a centerfold, to pay off her student loans and start her own business). Well, they were wrong (they must have been searching for her name and Playboy)...and, now she's a DYK for her interior design, not her Playboyness ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Wearstler Go team! I love that we can share interesting, not so interesting, or troublesome articles and fix them up and expand content. Just one of the reasons why this is my favorite list 3 -Sarah -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural artistic research advising.* -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler
An article was brought to my attention about an interior designer, Kelly Wearstler, who is also a fashion designer. The interesting twist - she was Playboy of the Month in September 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Wearstler One user is arguing that she's more famous as a one time Playboy centerfold (which she did under a pseudonym to pay her student loans), and not so much as a designer. I argue that (hell, just compare the Google statistics - over 200,000 for Kelly Wearstler designer and about 27,500 for Kelly Wearstler Playboy. I know who she is, and it isn't because she is a Playboy model (and I'm not an uninformed person, I've read my fair share of Playboys). Anyway, they want to have a special centerfold infobox (or something of that sort) that tell her breast size, etc. Another user is arguing it goes against [[WP:Undue]] not balancing the article correctly. I agree. No point in having a fashion designer and interior designers one time Playboy bunny moment overweigh the fact that she's got best selling books, has been a judge on a reality show on Bravo called Top Design and she sells her designs at Bergdorf Goodman. Check out the talk page, it's short, but interesting. -Sarah -- GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for Wikimedia http://www.glamwiki.org Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American Arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch and Sarah Stierch Consulting *Historical, cultural artistic research advising.* -- http://www.sarahstierch.com/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Kelly Wearstler
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote: An article was brought to my attention about an interior designer, Kelly Wearstler, who is also a fashion designer. The interesting twist - she was Playboy of the Month in September 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_Wearstler One user is arguing that she's more famous as a one time Playboy centerfold (which she did under a pseudonym to pay her student loans), and not so much as a designer. I argue that (hell, just compare the Google statistics - over 200,000 for Kelly Wearstler designer and about 27,500 for Kelly Wearstler Playboy. I know who she is, and it isn't because she is a Playboy model (and I'm not an uninformed person, I've read my fair share of Playboys). Anyway, they want to have a special centerfold infobox (or something of that sort) that tell her breast size, etc. Another user is arguing it goes against [[WP:Undue]] not balancing the article correctly. I agree. No point in having a fashion designer and interior designers one time Playboy bunny moment overweigh the fact that she's got best selling books, has been a judge on a reality show on Bravo called Top Design and she sells her designs at Bergdorf Goodman. Check out the talk page, it's short, but interesting. -Sarah Biographies of women who were Playboy centerfolds is one example where the community changed the way that they are routinely handled. This change took place after numerous discussions in various places such as the notability guideline page, Biography of living people noticeboard, talk pages of article, and at Afd. These discussions would make a good case study of how that systemic bias in the community can be overcome by using the existing Wikipedia channels for discussion. At one point in time the community was making an article for every Playboy centerfold with an large infobox template that included their measurements at the time of the centerfold layout. After loads of discussion it was decided that every centerfold model should not automatically have an article, and every women who was a centerfold and has an article should not necessarily have an Playmate infobox. Recently, several existing articles were discussed at the BLP noticeboard and the content of the articles were blanked, and a redirect was made to the article that discussed the issue of the magazine where they were featured. See the discussion about Tanya Beyer for an example of why this is needed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive131#Tanya_Beyer I've seen a discussion about Kelly Wearstler somewhere fairly recently but can't remember where. I see that Scott McDonald fixed the article. Scott McDonald rewrites BLP articles to make them adhere to NPOV especially when undue weight is an issue. So he is a good person to ask for help with difficult case if he is active. Sydney Poore User:FloNight ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
