Have you ever heard of ABBY MARTIN?

Abby is a journalist with her own program on the RT network. RT is sponsored by the Russian government and provides a perspective which can be described as the polar opposite of that of Fox News. Many commentators, libertarian, populist and progressive, who are not provided media access in corporate media outlets, are provided an opportunity to talk on RT and on Abby Martin’s program “Breaking the Set”.

Abby is also an artist who maintains an online gallery. Last year she co-directed segments of an independent documentary titled “99%: The Occupy Wall Street Film”.

In short, Abby Martin is an interesting person with a considerable track record in the arts and media. It would not be unusual for a reader, for a citizen, to want to learn more about this person. The casual consumer of information might well turn to Wikipedia for the brief “Whosit”-style article so typical of the digital encyclopedia. Indeed, until recently one could find such a note on the Wiki website.

But not anymore. No, the “supereditors” at Wikipedia have determined that someone with a network news and opinion program, who has participated in the making a documentary film, and produced artworks of note, lacks the “notability” one must possess to earn a note on Wikipedia.

Really? Every dunderhead on Fox News gets his or her own citation. Every pornostar who has turned a trick on camera rates a Wikipedia entry. Defunct publications get articles. Nobodies who have had 15 minutes of fame and no more are written up on Wikipedia. But not “Abby Martin”.

Is it because she is not notable or is it really because she IS notable as one who enables unsanctioned news and opinion to be known? Wikipedia, like such comparable cultural institutions as Amazon and Google, have grown and prospered as outside-the-mainstream trustworthy icons but really are mere tools of the Establishment.

_____________________________________________________

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

RT TV Network http://rt.com/

RT Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday

Abby Martin’s Breaking the Set Program https://www.youtube.com/BreakingTheSet

Abby Martin’s Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/JournalistAbbyMartin

Abby’s Artwork http://www.abbymartin.org/gallery.php

_______________________________________________

FOLLOW UP: We’ve attempted to accommodate most substantive comments (click on the “Comments” hyperlink at the foot of the post). Several comments take issue with the post and offer a defense of Wikipedia.

One argues that the Dissenting Democrat was incorrect to call the deletion of the “Abby Martin” a banning. Apparently, Wikipedia uses this as a term of art to identify those contributors who have their privileges to post withdrawn. By that standard, the Abby Martin entry was not banned. However, we do not use Wikipedia in-house jargon, we use plain English. The meaning of “ban” or “banning” is to forbid the use of something or the reading of something. Essentially, Wikipedia banned the reading of the formerly approved entry about Abby Martin by deleting it.

Another comment asserts that Wikipedia does mention “Abby Martin” and therefore the Dissenting Democrat was misinformed. Rather the commenter misunderstands the controversy.The original post points out that there once was an article on Abby in Wikipedia and that this article was deleted for the stated reason that it lacked “notability”. The fact that Abby’s name is included in a list of RT on-air personnel is not the same as reading an article about her.

We believe that Abby Martin more than meets any objective standard of what should be “notable” for inclusion in a digital encyclopedia. She hosts a televised news and opinion program, she has produced a substantial gallery of art, and she has participated in the production of a significant documentary film.

We believe that this could well be the result of a bias against persons of progressive tendencies. It may in the alternative be attributed to sheer ignorance.

Although Wikipedia would have us believe that it is the cooperative endeavor of many heads and hands equally responsible for the work product, this is the mythos of the institution. Behind appearances the reality is less romantic. Among the many, many participants, some are more equal than others. These “supereditors”, like the character “Sheldon” on the Big Bang Theory, are very intelligent and well-informed in one or another field but grossly ignorant in others. However, with the over-confidence of the learned, they believe they know everything. They really do believe that if they don’t know something then it must not be important. They make their editorial judgments accordingly.