Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna
It's unsurprising for Madonna to be at the centre of a religious controversy. For the past seventeen years, there has been an unresolved debate regarding the Wikipedia page titled Madonna. The Wikipedia community remains divided on whether this page should focus on the singer, topics related to Mary, mother of Jesus, or serve as a disambiguation page for both.
What's in a name?
edit
The term 'Madonna' originates from the Old Italian phrase ma donna, meaning 'my lady'. In the 16th century, it was used as a respectful form of address for Italian women and subsequently became a title for Mary, mother of Jesus, in Roman Catholic tradition by the 17th century. In art, a Madonna is a depiction of Mary, sometimes with her child, Jesus. Over time, the word 'Madonna' acquired various connotations related to women. By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the name became strongly associated with the singer Madonna Ciccone, who chose to perform under her first name alone. Consequently, it evolved into a moniker used to describe a singer, usually female, whose artistry or success is comparable to that of Madonna.
When a term is potentially ambiguous, the Wikipedia community aims to designate a primary topic to what the reader is most likely looking for. In cases where no clear primary topic exists, the page usually lists all relevant pages as a disambiguation page. A topic is considered primary if it is the most commonly sought after when readers enter the term. The primary long-term significance sometimes holds greater notability and educational merit, as in the case of common nouns.
Disputes over primary topics are typically resolved through move discussions to gather a consensus among editors. The discussions take into account factors such as traffic statistics and references from reliable sources. Merely being historically significant or the origin of a term does not automatically confer primary status, nor does relevance to a specific audience group ensure primary status if the general reader is likely to perceive it differently.
The many requested moves of Madonna
edit.jpg)
In the early days of Wikipedia, the page Madonna was created on 8 February 2002, by Chato as a biography of the singer. On 31 July 2002, a hatnote was inserted after an IP editor added, 'Madonna is a term used to refer to the Virgin Mary.' As the page grew, it became a somewhat disambiguation page, which was divided into two sections: the top discussing the term referring to Mary, and the bottom remaining a biography of the singer. On 29 October 2002, Nate Silva created the page Madonna (singer), transferred over the relevant text, and reconstructed Madonna into a disambiguation page, later adding a link to Madonna (art).
On 1 April 2008, a proposal was made to move the page Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna, arguing that the singer was more frequently searched than Mary, thereby warranting a direct link. Supporters cited that the singer received significantly more page views and links than Mary, suggesting a primary usage. However, opponents stressed that page views alone should not determine primary usage, emphasizing the importance of consensus and the historical and cultural significance of the name Madonna as it relates to Mary. All editors opposed the move, and the pages remained.
In 2010 and 2012, Madonna (entertainer) → Madonna was again discussed, with arguments that the singer is more commonly associated with the name and that disambiguation pages should follow a consistent naming convention. However, opponents argued that the primary and proper meaning of 'Madonna' is Mary and that both subjects receive significant traffic. They suggested keeping Madonna as a disambiguation page or moving it to 'Madonna (disambiguation)' instead. The consensus leaned towards opposing the move, citing the ambiguity of the name and the necessity of disambiguation due to the multiple notable uses of Madonna.
In early 2013, editors debated whether Madonna should primarily refer to art depicting Mary. Kauffner and others supported moving Madonna (art) → Madonna, citing its long-term significance and educational value, following guidelines favouring enduring notability. Opponents argued that 'Madonna' is overwhelmingly used for the singer, as evidenced by high page views and links, and redirecting to the art form would confuse readers. It highlighted the clash between historical significance and current usage in determining Wikipedia's primary topics, ultimately maintaining the disambiguation to accommodate both interpretations.
With each request, the case for the singer being the primary topic gained strength. In 2013, 2014, and 2016, the move was debated again, with the same arguments from previous discussions being raised. By 2020, a consensus established that the singer should be the primary topic and the page about her was moved to Madonna. The discussion was closed by Daniel Case, who reviewed it with prior discussions. He observed that previous outcomes had either opposed the change or failed to reach a consensus. He acknowledged the controversy surrounding his decision among the opposers, emphasizing that consensus can shift over time.
The discussion observed that the typical reader is more likely to seek information about the singer when searching for 'Madonna', as evidenced by view statistics. A frequent counterargument to the opposition was that Wikipedia's purpose is not to act as a cultural gatekeeper, but to reflect current knowledge and interests. It was acknowledged that the decision is not final and can be reconsidered in the future should the singer's cultural relevance decline. Additionally, comments raised the question of whether some opponents' interest in Catholic arts and religion indicated a cherry-picking of policy to support a bias.
In 2022 and 2024, move requests determined that the singer should continue to be considered the primary topic for the term Madonna. It was shown that readers search for the singer at a much higher rate than for any other topics, including religious figures. Supporters of the move argued that Madonna as a religious figure and artistic motif has centuries of historical significance. Opposers highlighted that the singer has had a multi-decade career with substantial commercial success and influence. Some suggested that her relevance might be declining, while others noted that the religious significance might also be declining due to the reduced prevalence of Christianity in the English-speaking world.
Ultimately, the discussions concluded that while long-term significance is important, the high current usage of 'Madonna' to refer to the singer was the main deciding factor. The consensus was that the singer remains the primary topic, as the argument that most readers are looking for information about her was deemed stronger. Predictions about the future significance of either topic were considered speculative and not heavily weighted. Therefore, the singer being the primary topic of 'Madonna' was retained both times.
The lore of Kalloor
The writer is a long-term reader of Wikipedia and decided to finally bite the bullet to improve the project. He is starting off by working on fixup projects whilst easing into writing article content.
Kalloor — purportedly a location in Tamil Nadu in India, linked to the death of Thomas the Apostle — became the centre of scrutiny. Nominated for deletion on 5 May 2024, the article was criticized for lacking verifiable sources and potentially being a hoax. Because the article was insignificant, this process presents an opportunity to highlight the consequences that original information on Wikipedia has on knowledge, without the risk of causing a heated debate.
Kalloor
edit
Editor TenPoundHammer initially brought the issue to the discussion page for possible hoaxes. They highlighted that the article had remained relatively unchanged since its creation on 31 August 2005. Despite a sparse web footprint, the article claimed Kalloor as the site where Thomas the Apostle was killed. Even more concerning was that Piotrus' investigation revealed that the article's primary contributor, an anonymous IP address, had also created a similarly questionable entry on Thrikkannamangal, a village which has sources to back up its existence. This pattern raised further suspicions about the legitimacy of the Kalloor article.
Piotrus and Malerisch debated whether the article might be a hoax or an urban legend. Another peculiarity is that Malerisch found a brief mention of Kalloor in the 2005 book First International Conference on the History of Early Christianity in India, suggesting the name might have some historical basis. The quote read "Apostle Thomas was martyred in Mylapore near Madras (Tradition calls this place Kalloor – the place of rock) in Tamilnadu State, India". This conference took place in early August 2005, and predated the article's creation by around two weeks. Viewed from a Wikipedian perspective, this single reference may have been insufficient to establish notability or credibility.
Kalloor was initially tagged for speedy deletion, but upon review, it underwent a full Articles for Deletion (AfD) process. This allowed a thorough examination by the Wikipedia editorial community. If it was speedily deleted, it could open up the possibility of a deletion review. The discussion, initiated by Piotrus, highlighted concerns over the article's authenticity. It was noted that the claim of Kalloor being the "place in Tamil Nadu, India, where the Apostle Thomas, one of the 12 disciples of Jesus, is believed to have been killed" was a significant claim that may fail to meet Wikipedia's verification standards, according to Piotrus. He noted the absence of credible sources, and the article's dubious nature, as reasons for its nomination for deletion. Editors such as Gawaon and SparklessPlug supported deletion due to the absence of reliable sources and the high probability of the article being a hoax.
Other editors largely agreed on the article's lack of verifiability. JBW, another editor, pointed out the historical inconsistencies and the difficulty in finding reliable references to support the claims made about Kalloor. The discussion revealed that the original text, with minimal changes over time, remained unsubstantiated and potentially fabricated. Despite initial consensus leaning towards deletion, further examination by editor Malerisch suggested that while parts of the article might be dubious, the entire entry could not be entirely dismissed as a hoax, as "Kalloor" was confirmed to be an Indian surname, citing Yoohanon Chrysostom Kalloor as an example. The discussion ran for the seven days and closed with the article being deleted.
Wikipedia, a platform reliant on community contributions, faces the constant challenge of verifying the vast amount of information it hosts. Kalloor serves as a fleeting reminder of the necessity for thorough verification processes to prevent the spread of misinformation. Although the village may exist, as there are sources that predate the article, there is not enough evidence to support its inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Brazilian aardvark problem
edit
Wikipedia has become an important fact-checking website, meaning false information on it can cause knowledge to become distorted. The New York Times has called Wikipedia a "factual netting that holds the digital world together", so being an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is uniquely paradoxical by being trustworthy and untrustworthy at the same time. Whilst the notion of "don't trust Wikipedia, anyone can edit it" has taken a new meaning, highlighting political bias, it originally focused on incorrect purported factual information. The most obvious way to identify original information on Wikipedia is to see if it existed before it was in the encyclopedia.
If original information were to exist long enough in the encyclopedia, other places may reuse this information and then other places will cite it from them with infinite regress. This happened in 2008 when a 17-year-old student included the nickname "Brazilian aardvark" in the article about the coati. This nickname was on Wikipedia for six years which led it to be cited by other publications. With the newspapers The Independent, the Daily Express, Metro, The Daily Telegraph, and works published by the University of Chicago and the University of Cambridge using the nickname, it became reliably sourced through circular reporting. Between November 2007 and April 2014, an anonymous editor added what translated to "hairy bush fruit" to a list of Chinese names for kiwifruit. This term was then used by The Guardian and cited by the article to source the name.
.jpg)
The examples section in the Wikipedia article on circular reporting lists other times this has happened. Most of these are no longer part of the respective articles. Every time a Brazilian aardvark appears, it sometimes sparks a discussion about whether information should be included in the article as it becomes reliably sourced:
- Sacha Baron Cohen reportedly working at Goldman Sachs.
- Whether "Brazilian aardvark" should be included in the Coati article.
- Whether the middle name "Wilhelm" should be included on Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg.
- The year the Casio F-91W was released.
As I was writing this piece, I stumbled upon a fascinating discovery: an entire page on Wikipedia dedicated to the phenomenon. Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents meticulously keeps a record of the widespread occurrences of this problem.
Some Brazilian aardvarks do eventually become real. The name of the Pringles mascot, Julius Pringle, originated in 2006 when an editor inserted the name "Julius Pringles" into Wikipedia. This was then used by publications and subsequently adopted by Pringles. The alias "Patrick Parker" for the comic book supervillain, the Riddler, originated in 2013 when an anonymous editor inserted the nickname to Wikipedia. It was in the article for nine years and eventually used in the 2022 film The Batman.
The aim of Wikipedia is not to seek truth, it is to seek verifiability. Sources that are considered reliable or unreliable are decided by Wikipedians through discussions. If incorrect information comes from sources that are deemed reliable, it can be included until reliable sources correct it. However, the instance of information originating from Wikipedia makes "the Brazilian aardvark problem" a special case which both inflicts harm on knowledge and challenges some of Wikipedia's core principles.
Kalloor has sources which predated the article, so it wasn't a Brazilian aardvark. However, it would be insightful to know if there has ever been information, that didn't eventually become real, which originally came from Wikipedia and was reused by reliable sources. How did editors handle it, knowing the information came from Wikipedia? Have publishers ever been notified that the information came from Wikipedia?