User:Narcoleptic HulkFace

Pussy Riot - Fight For Your Right To Riot

A tale of feminism, government control and social issues originating in Russia, but reflecting the current state of most of the world. The subject of the band "Pussy Riot" will be discussed further in this essay. Some of the more interesting aspects of this topic relate to how the government tries to censor its people, how religion is often held in a higher regard in government when they likely should be separate and how women fighting for equality are still frowned upon in much of the developed world. The first reason this Wikipedia article merits further attention as a potential source for positive social change because even though this happened over ten years ago, there has been little change in society's views of these topics and citizens continue to debate the exact same issues today as they did over one-hundred years ago. The second reason is that this band hails from Russia and this is a further glimpse into the Russian government with the past meeting the present in regard to how they are unwilling to engage in positive social change, but rather a dictatorship only.

In the "Pussy Riot" Wikipedia article Pussy Riot it offers a top-level view of the Russian band "Pussy Riot" and its members as well as their general political views in relation to Russia specifically. A potential article improvement would be to further address their feminist and LGBTQ+ stance, rather than just focusing on one situation regarding the Russian Orthodox Church. This article would almost suggest that the groups major point of concern is only with the church. The minimalist approach to the Wikipedia article on "Pussy Riot" fails to mention that this band gained notoriety for social and political views well before their 2012 incident at the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour that ultimately led to the imprisonment of only two of its members. This article merits attention due to the fact that Russia is currently at war with the Ukraine as it seeks absolute power over that country only for the sake of dictatorship. Russia is not interested in social change; Russia is interested in absolute power. The relation of "Pussy Riot" bringing to light the failings of the Russian government as well as religion in government is an important topic for those in the United States as well as we are currently undergoing many struggles with our government and religious groups overstepping and mixing and furthering their own agendas, rather than what is good for the greater of society.

Firstly, the Wikipedia article "Pussy Riot" is about women, which addresses the gender bias issue within Wikipedia. This quote from (NPR: Who gets to be notable and who doesn't: Gender bias on Wiki) states "You know, I think it really complicates our understanding of how women's contributions to society are assessed." when there is such a high disparity between articles written about men vs. women. There has been analysis done on this matter with a quote from NPR's Mary Louise Kelly "On Wikipedia, gender inequality is hiding in plain sight. Of more than a million and a half biographies - that's on the English-language version - fewer than 19% are about women." That is not to say that articles are not written about women, but often they are flagged to be deleted from Wikipedia for one reason or another. With the Wikipedia community based on civilian use, you'd need no other reason to flag an article for removal than you don't want to read about women. With enough votes for removal the article is removed and there's one more gender bias created on the site. It would be beneficial to include links from the "Pussy Riot" article to other female prioritized articles in relation to music as well women's fight against patriarchy.

The second positive aspect of Wikipedia articles is that they have been used in judicial legal reasonings that can also contribute to social change. This fact is referenced in (The Washington Post: Judges rely on Wikipedia for their opinions, a new study finds) in which it's quoted "finding that judges routinely rely on its articles not just for background information but for core legal reasoning and specific language they use in their decisions". This suggests that when there's a legal ruling to determine that doesn't have much precedence, judges turn to the online encyclopedia to do a deep dive on a range of topics to resource possible rulings. The more articles there are on legal proceedings, the easier it might be to see a pattern in sentencings that could further assist judges in making more progressive social change. The opposite could also be said, if more conservative rulings are the majority of legal article postings within Wikipedia, that could also lead the way to social change in a much more restrictive and harsh direction. It would be beneficial to include links from the "Pussy Riot" article to other music articles in relation to women in music fighting legal injustice. This article details specifically their opposition of the Russian Orthodox Church and its close ties with Vladimir Putin, but if judges are looking for comparisons for their legal rulings it could be a one-stop shop for legal rulings in the music industry.

The idea of Wikipedia is quite exciting. The ability to review an enormous encyclopedia at the touch of a button brings about an abundant collection of knowledge to anyone with an internet connection. This in theory is amazing as the content is always evolving and changing and creating new ideas for its readers. The negative aspect of this is the ability that anyone can edit the content for disinformation. The fact that this is a volunteer led platform leaves a lot of room for misinformation to go uncorrected within its articles unless there is a volunteer very interested in a specific topic on standby to correct the false information. Wikipedia could definitely contribute to leading social change, but I think that the platform would have to become similar to a corporation to be a major contributor. A delegated group tasked with a diversity and inclusion mindset could further assist with women's rights issues and gender bias by pushing for further diversity in articles and preventing the women led topics from being deleted from its platform. Similarly, a legal group that is focused on something along the lines of the Innocence Project could make a huge impact. The Innocence Project is a legal group that helps the wrongly accused become exonerated and reforms the criminal justice system by attempting to prevent incorrect sentencings from happening in the future. Being supremely in tune with incorrect rulings could benefit judges using the site for ruling comparisons.

Do you believe that more topics about women on Wikipedia would lead to more or less gender bias ways of thinking?

Judges may reference legal articles on the platform, but do you think these references actually sway their decisions or just give them more determination to prove their own judgements in the case?

Do you believe we will see real social change for the better in your lifetime?

WORKS CITED Cohen, N. (2022, August 5). Perspective | judges rely on Wikipedia for their opinions, a new study finds. The Washington Post. Retrieved August 30, 2022, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/08/05/judges-rely-wikipedia-their-opinions-new-study-finds/

NPR. (2021, July 13). Who gets to be notable and who doesn't: Gender bias on wiki. NPR. Retrieved August 30, 2022, from https://www.npr.org/2021/07/13/1015754856/who-gets-to-be-notable-and-who-doesnt-gender-bias-on-wiki

Wikimedia Foundation. (2022, August 15). Pussy riot. Wikipedia. Retrieved August 30, 2022, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pussy_Riot