User:Tyrenius/Historical systemic bias
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Historical subjects need positive discrimination. |
Wikipedia has a systemic bias in favour of contemporary and pop culture subjects, as opposed to historical ones, which need positive discrimination to be applied. In particular, NOTABILITY has less relevance with historical than contemporary subjects.
This is not problematic in the case of major historical figures and topics, but becomes significantly so in the case of more obscure subjects, which are nevertheless a worthwhile part of the historical record for anyone wishing to pursue the subject in depth. Wikipedia is NOTPAPER and has the resources to provide this information.
The current application of NOTABILITY mitigates against this depth of knowledge. It has been created on the assumption that anything worthwhile including in Wikipedia will have an abundance of verifiable secondary sources available to verify it. This works perfectly well for contemporary subjects, as such sources exist. Massive amounts of money and resources are put into the creation of published material, which exist for people, bands and organisations.
In comparison, the amount of funding and time put into historical research is meagre, and historical subjects are disadvantaged, but not because they are intrinsically less worthy of inclusion than their contemporary equivalent.
An additional disadvantage is that historical subjects are more difficult to research, as they are less likely to have an extensive presence on the web, which is relied on extensively by many wikipedia editors. This can apply even to subjects in the 1980s and 1970s, before the web became widespread, as many newspapers, for example, now have online archives, but may not have archived earlier years. It is particularly the case for subjects from earlier centuries.
Historical sources cannot be compared on a quantative basis with contemporary ones. A short mention in a book from a historic time, when far less printed material was produced, will be more significant than a short mention in a book today. It should be noted also that notablity is not temporary, so that if a topic has at one time been notable, "there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic."
WP:NOTABILITY is, however, only a guideline. The core policies are Verifiability, Neutral point of view and No original research. It should be noted that the latter permits the proper factual use of published primary sources, only barring the intepretation or synthesis of such sources to make an argument.