The Massachusetts Medievalist Battles Wikipedia
The Massachusetts Medievalist is still thinking about the medieval elements of Margaret Atwood's newest novel The Testaments. My last post of 2022 focused on Aunt Lydia, who I think Atwood named after Lydia O'Leary, founder of the skin care company Covermark and under-celebrated entrepreneur. That post ended with this observation: "Like many notable women, Lydia O'Leary doesn't have a Wikipedia page. I'm working to correct that now. Stay tuned."
Short version: Wikipedia's editors are indeed as sexist as you've heard. Ironically, there's actually a long article on Wikipedia titled "Gender Bias on Wikipedia.”
(Image from Ideas.Ted.com)
Details: Using a handful of online sources from MIT, the Covermark website, and the New York Times, I drafted a short biography entry for O'Leary, added some references to a couple print items that were at least somewhat-searchable on Google Books, and submitted it for review by the Wikipedia editorial committee.
Even though the automated system warned that I might have to wait a few weeks for a response, I received my wiki-rejection within hours. It read:
"This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article – that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject" (I have kept italics but omitted links from this quotation).
So Wikipedia presented me with a classic women's history problem: she is obviously not very important since there aren't enough sources for you to cite about this women since no one thought she was important.
Undaunted and irritated, I went into beast-feminist-researcher mode. I found a brief narrative about her as a resident of the swanky Park Avenue building where she died. I added references to some out-of-print books and some newspaper articles about corrective makeup. I resubmitted.
Within hours, I received the exact same message. A different reviewing editor also did not think that O'Leary was "notable" enough to qualify to be the subject of a Wikipedia article.
It occurred to me that the Wikipedia editors had a lot in common with the 1932 patent reviewers who first turned down O'Leary's patent application. Both thought: she's just some woman who was fooling around with some makeup – how is that possibly important?
We can now add "feminist history" to the list of things that take a village. Two feminist Wikipedia angels (I think that's the technical term) replied to my plea for assistance via the Medieval Feminist email listserv. Lucy and Leah dredged up multiple citations and references for me – a few were not actually usable, but most were incredibly helpful. A heroic colleague at UCLA photographed a hard copy, not-yet-digitized 1936 Reader's Digest deep in her library's stacks.
Lucy and Leah discovered that O'Leary has a "Who's Who of American Women" entry in the 1964 edition. A trip to the Schlesinger Library, the only local spot to hold that volume, almost ended in catastrophe when I couldn't find O'Leary in that alphabetical dictionary. Then I double-checked the page number and realized that she was listed as "Mrs. James Reeves." What was that again about women lost to history?
I also discovered that Salvador Dali painted her portrait (no visible birthmark, of course- she’s wearing Covermark!):
With encouragement from Lucy and Leah, I resubmitted, and waited to be able to post here in triumph about O'Leary's new Wikipedia entry. Alas, yesterday I received yet another rejection, this one from an ominously-usernamed Wikipedia editor, "InterstellarGamer12321." This rejection states that
"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources" (as above, I have eliminated the links but kept the italics from the rejection text).
So the Interstellar Gamer does not think that MIT, the New York Times, Who's Who, Reader's Digest, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, the Chicago Review Press et al. are reliable sources. I am also sputtering-mad that he (I'm sure it's "he") thinks I need a "referencing for beginners" guide.
I have contacted the Feminist Wikipedia Angels for advice and have dug in for a long haul. Interstellar Gamer: look out. Lydia O'Leary will get her day in the sun. Stay tuned.
Reading this leaves me pretty breathless. I have a feeling you will prevail. Good luck, if you need luck, many of us are with you in spirit, if that helps. Though, now I think of it, if there's anyone we can write to on your behalf, pls give us the address.
Further clarification: I heard from another feminist wikipedia angel who noted this crucial point: "You mention 'the Wikipedia editorial committee' - there is no such committee, but the perception that there is one is (imo) a real problem. What you submitted to was 'Articles for Creation', where editors with the permission to review AfC submissions can read your draft and check if it meets basic policy and notability guidelines. These editors aren't a committee, and most aren't admins or anything like that - they're just volunteers like you're a volunteer, except that they've been around long enough to show they know the ropes."