Wikipedia Remains a Stumbling Block to Equality of Opportunity for Artists
Ever since I started the movement to abolish Wikipedia’s notability policy last year, one group of people who have been very interested are independent artists and their fans. Of course, the movement wasn’t created for independent artists in particular, it was created for every voice that has been, in our opinion, unfairly shut out of Wikipedia. This includes independent artists, independent writers, and many other categories of people.
But then, I thought I should dedicate an article to talk about independent artists in particular, because they do illustrate brilliantly my point about Wikipedia being a stumbling block for equality.
Actually, supporting independent artists is political for me.
Many people like independent artists because their work is often of better quality than what major labels offer. One reason for liking independent artists is because they often serve niche tastes much better than big label offerings, because they are not under pressure to cater to large numbers of people. Another reason is because independent artists are more real, more authentic, in many people’s eyes. But for me, the most important reason for supporting independent artists is political.
As a moral libertarian, I fight for everyone’s right to have equal liberty to express themselves. Everyone’s voice is unique, and everyone should have an equal opportunity to contribute. The big label music industry doesn’t allow for this. You see, due to the major financial barrier to crack into the big label controlled industry, even the best stuff often don’t quite get there. Letting your music choices be limited by major label offerings means that you only get to hear from those allowed in by the gatekeepers. Even worse, you are choosing to support limiting the ability of many people to have a voice, a limitation that disproportionally affects disprivileged minorities, I must add. In the past, when radio was king, this limitation was simply a part of life. But in the age of the internet and independent cultural creation, why should we have to put up with unfair gatekeeping?
Things will change in time, if there are no stumbling blocks.
Of course, I know that people’s attitudes often take time to change. The independent music market has only been accessible for many people for just over a decade, and old habits die hard. For some people, an artist being on the radio or being signed to a major label still carry some form of ‘prestige’. To change such attitudes is still a long game. Given enough time, I believe it is possible that one day nobody will care about whether an artist is major label or independent anymore. I also believe that it is up to us to get us all there faster, because real justice depends on it.
But then, Wikipedia’s notability policy is one of the biggest stumbling blocks here. You see, it is quite difficult for independent artists to meet the notability criteria, even if they have a sizable following. Many so-called reliable sources do not write about independent artists no matter what, so it is extremely rare for three or more independent sources to have covered the same independent artist in detail. This is because most so-called reliable sources are part of the big money establishment, and mostly work with other parts of the big money establishment. On the other hand, when a major label wants to launch a new artist, said artist will fulfill the notability criteria perhaps before they even have a sizable following, because what major label promotion campaign doesn’t involve at least a handful of major media interviews? In the real world, independent artists have no way of accessing major media no matter how many years of effort they have put into their work, but major labels can leverage their power to encourage media outlets to write about ‘up and coming’ artists they want to promote. In the real world, Wikipedia’s notability policy is helping to amplify this unfair situation.
The case of independent artists also illustrates how Wikipedia’s notability policy helps to amplify real-world inequality of opportunity. The music industry is one area where there are huge financial barriers to entry. For example, one often needs to be willing to go into debt or sign contracts that will potentially put one into debt to even have a chance to get a foot in the door. If you don’t come from wealth, this is something that you probably won’t dare do. If you have a family to support or a sick family member to care for, this is not something you would do. Hence, entry into the music industry is not quite fair in a strictly merit-based way. Wikipedia’s very existence severely favours major label artists, because they get to have an easily accessible biography on a familiar platform, that is also a one-stop source for things like photos and discography, allowing people to easily learn about (and hence potentially get interested) in the artist much more easily. Changes to Google in recent years have made things even worse, because Wikipedia biographies (but not biographies from other sources) are displayed with search results.
Some Wikipedians still like to say that Wikipedia merely reflects the outside world and its inequalities. But then, studies have shown that about a fifth of the population are racist and homophobic. Is it OK to say racist and homophobic things once a week, then, in the name of reflecting the outside world?
