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/Notice…)
-- 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 Q&A
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.)