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_Decem...
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
And I just realized it's a nomination for Kww for Arbcom, not an Arbcom case.
Ugh, sorry. I'm in the middle of finals and preparing to fly out of the country in a few hours. My brain is fried.
I'm still pissed though. ;)
-Sarah
On 12/1/11 9:37 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
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_Decem...
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
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.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Rob gamaliel8@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.
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Nathan nawrich@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.
Meh.. I think you should be proud to have made a convincing argument on the article's talk page, and influenced the article to be a better-weighted reflection of the individual's life/career. I don't think your criteria for success should include "convincing everybody" -- if so, you're just setting yourself up for frustration :)
I reviewed the comment linked, and also the [[Talk:Kelly Wearstler]] page, and it does seem to me that the candidate's statement is an inaccurate reflection of what happened. He states that the primary reason for changes to the article include the subject's preferences, and a judgment that being a Playboy playmate is "negative." I don't see evidence of any of that on the talk page. If you're concerned about ArbCom having reasonable people, you might consider asking him about the accuracy of his statements. I'd suggest keeping it short, dispassionate, and to the point; just ask him to reconcile his characterization with the actual article talk page.
Or, just take the ArbCom candidacy page off your watchlist, and get back to writing great articles :)
-Pete
On Dec 1, 2011, at 6:37 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
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_Decem...
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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
I reviewed the comment linked, and also the [[Talk:Kelly Wearstler]] page, and it does seem to me that the candidate's statement is an inaccurate reflection of what happened.
I can't speak to the accuracy of anyone's comments, but we had a big discussion about this on BLPN too back in May, so he may have been talking about comments there.