Oi! I've been deleted!
What Started It All
A few months ago, Wikipedia deleted the entries for The Apostolic Johannite Church and one of its priests, Father Jordan Stratford. The Apostolic Johannite Church (aka the AJC) is a small, but active, denomination in the Modern Gnostic tradition and Father Jordan is one of the movement’s most prominent writers
and personalities.
(NOTE: In the spirit of full disclosure, I should note that I have several friends in this church, and once held my ordination credentials in a church that had a strong relationship with with the AJC.)
The official decision to remove the AJC’s listing was based on the group’s lack of “notability“. Wikipedia’s guidelines require that listed topics receive significant coverage in “reliable sources” that are “independent of the subject”.
The AJC, being a small church, hasn’t been mentioned in a whole lot of secondary sources, though as Father Jordan Stratford (an Archpriest in the AJC) notes, there have been a few such mentions. Apparently these weren’t good enough, and the AJC lost its entry.
Frankly, I am conflicted on this issue:
Wikipedia’s current policy of requiring reliable third-party sources for article subjects is not unreasonable: Without some sort of qualifying criteria for inclusion, Wikipedia might find itself obliged to include every minister ever ordained by the Universal Life Church.
At the same time, I am also aware that many New Religious Movements (aka NRMs) don’t have the money, nor the influence, to attract huge amounts of media attention.Yet within certain communities and/or subcultures, they are both important and well-known, and for those who are researching such NRMs, a well-written Wikipedia article can be incredibly useful.
I believe that Wikipedia can take this opportunity to reconsider its standards and make Wikipedia a useful resource for NRM researchers. Instead of holding all articles on NRMs and/or specific organizations and personalities within NRMs to their current standards of notability and reliable third-party sources, Wikipedia might consider some alternative guidelines, such as:
- Is the personality or organization a part of a religious movement that is included in Wikipedia? (Rationale: If a religious movement in included in Wikipedia under standard notability guidelines, there is likely to be real interest in those groups or individuals that are a part of that movement.)
- Has the organization been in existence for a significant amount of time (i.e. 5 years or more)? (Rationale: An organization that has been around for awhile, without much in the way of financial or institutional support, likely has some substance. . .and significance.)
- Does the organization have a significant membership and/or affiliate organizations?(Rationale: Local affiliates/members testify to the organization’s influence.)
- Are there references to the personality or organization in the web or print publications of other organizations/personalities within the movement? (Rationale: Again, mentions in a NRM’s literature/publications testifies to the notability of one if its organizations/personalities.)
- Has the organization or its leaders participated in conferences, conventions, or other gatherings? (Rationale: See above.)
- Has the organization or personality produced significant literature (even if it is self-published)? (Rationale: The IRS uses this standard in judging whether a religious organization is “bona fide” and entitled to tax exemption. Writing and producing literature, even if it is self-published, takes committment. This may not make an organization/personality “notable” but it does testify to its legitimacy.)
- Does the organization have legal status (i.e. has it been incorporated)? Does it have a physical address? (Rationale: See above.)
It is my hope that the powers-that-be at Wikipedia consider their notability guidelines in light of the needs and resources of New Religious Movements and their researchers. Again, this is not to say that all standards should be removed. It is just that the current standards might be unreachable by some very significant organizations and people, and this harms, rather than enhances, Wikipedia’s mission.
