On Jul 21, 2006, at 8:56 AM, Michael Hopcroft wrote:
As anyone who's been in a college literature
course can tell you, there
are many important things to ask about any work of art that go well
beyond what happened in it and who was involved in tis creation. "why
is
this important?" "why do people talk about it, and what about it do
they
discuss?" "what does it mean, both intrinsically and in the context of
the times and situation in which it was created?" "what reasons do
those
who dislike or dismiss it have for doing so, and how valid are those
reasons today?" "has the way the work has been percieved changed
signficantly between the time in which it was created and now?" The
same
can be said in many respects for the creators of a work; "Why was
Shakespeare?" and "Why does Shakespeare matter?" are even more vital
questions for a scholar (and encyclopedia writing is an essentially
scholarly exercise) as "Who was Shakespeare?"
This is very true and
correct, and is exactly the sort of questions we
look for in better Wikipedia articles.
<snip sensible paragraph on pop culture not being different from
Shakespeare in terms of these questions>
Meanwhile, many wikipedia writers seem to be letting
relatively minor
things occupy more of their attention -- not because those things
should
not be included, but because they stop with them and do not go any
further.
I agree; I can only explain this as finding sources than answer the
questions above are harder than finding sources for the more minor
aspects. But we certainly should have both.
<snip sad, but common, example>
To partly answer that question: Burr matters because
he was one of the
first true "TV stars", because he had a knack for combining gravity
with
subtle humor which brought to vivid life one of the seminal characters
of the medium of television, and his charisma enabled him to trancend
the mold of the "leading man" stereotype of the era -- helping prove in
the process that the new and not-well-respected medium WAS worthy of
the
attentions of a serious actor. In short, if you want to understand the
way mass media developed in the United States, Raymond Burr is VERY
important. Yet only his sexuality was considered important by whoever
did his wikipedia article (unless it has been edited further since I I
read it).
That's a *great* explanation! Please don't give up on Wikipedia
- if
you can do such writing, and are willing, we are delighted to have you
- don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
When writing a pop-culture article, even a stub I wish
would be
completed by others, I have made a practice of showing, as best I
could,
exactly what about my topic is significant. Because anyone who
approaches editing cultural Wikipedia with any degree of serious should
realize that they ARE scholars -- even if they're scholars of the
Collected works of CLAMP rather than The Collected Works of George
Orwell.
And we greatly thank you for doing that. Please keep up the good work.
Jesse Weinstein