Notability criteria

Equalpedia principles on notability criteria

1. Together with our network of experts, we have developed contemporary notability criteria for our encyclopaedic work. We know that knowledge changes, just as the assessment of what is worth knowing changes. That is why our notability criteria are regularly reviewed and further developed with the editorial team and our external authors and experts.
2. Relevant sources: Knowledge arises from correct information. To verify it, the Equalpedia editorial team uses sources such as specialist journals, handbooks, encyclopaedias, scholarly publications and databases. To follow debates and events, national and international media are also reviewed. The articles are checked for both subject matter and language.
3. Updating the articles: Just as our notability criteria are reviewed regularly, the articles also continue to be edited.
4. Our editorial team consists of in-house authors and a network of external authors and experts. In this way, a large number of editors from different academic disciplines work together on the content.

 

Notability criteria: GUIDE

1. Notability criteria for persons

• Persons who are or have been perceived by the public because of their outstanding achievements;
• Persons who campaign or have campaigned to a particular degree for the rights of women and LGBTQIA+ people and other marginalised groups;
• Persons whose work is or has been of lasting public interest;
• Persons who shape or have shaped their time;
• Persons who carry out or have carried out significant research;
• Persons who are or were involved in far-reaching social changes (political or technological);
• Persons who have received special honours or awards;
• Persons who have attracted attention through spectacular political actions.

In addition, these persons and their works should be listed in important public libraries, archives, or in publications, specialist journals or reference works recognised by the respective professional groups.

The following professional groups should be mentioned here:

Our attention here is primarily on women and LGBTQIA+ people who have campaigned to a significant degree (with national-level media coverage) at the international, national or local level for the rights of women and LGBTQIA+ people and other marginalised groups.

• Architects
• Activists
• Filmmakers (film, television and documentary)
• Photographers
• Women’s rights activists
• Humanities scholars (e.g. archaeologists, film scholars, historians, art historians, musicologists, philosophers, linguists and literary scholars, theatre scholars, theologians, etc.)
• Trade unionists
• Engineers
• Journalists
• Lawyers
• Cabaret artists
• Artists
• Cultural professionals (e.g. (literary) agents, gallery owners, curators, translators, event organisers, publishers, cultural mediators, etc.)
• Mechanical engineers
• Musicians
• Natural scientists (e.g. astronomers, biologists, chemists, computer scientists, geoscientists, mathematicians, physicians, physicists, zoologists, etc.)
• Politicians
• Directors (theatre, film, television)
• Writers
• Social scientists (e.g. anthropologists, ethnologists, educational scientists, cultural, communication and media scholars, (special) educators, political scientists, psychologists and psychoanalysts, social workers, sociologists, economists, etc.)
• Entrepreneurs, possibly also founders of a start-up
• Behavioural scientists

 

2. Notability criteria for topics, terms and keywords

For Equalpedia, all topics that are significant in connection with the equality of women and LGBTQIA+ people and other marginalised groups are relevant. We include terms when they concern an irreversible, current, scientific, technical, medical or social development that is likewise connected with equality.

Keywords are included if a term has demonstrably been present in daily life (media and publications of all kinds) over a longer period of time, e.g. the gender star (Gendersternchen).

• Professional work
  • Equal pay, gender pay gap, women’s quota
  • Care work/equal care
• Empowerment
• Women’s rights
• Gender and gender studies
• Violence-related topics
  • Violence in the name of honour
  • Human trafficking
  • Prostitution
  • Self-determination topics such as the §218 debate (German abortion law)
  • Sexualised violence
• LGBTQIA+/Queer
• Media
• Medicine, body, health
• Migration
• Fashion
• Politics
• Women and LGBTQIA+ people of colour

 

3. Notability criteria for institutions

Relevant for Equalpedia are institutions that campaign for the equality, interests, care and advancement of women and LGBTQIA+ people and other marginalised groups. From today’s perspective, these institutions have made a notable contribution to the advancement of women and LGBTQIA+ people and other marginalised groups and look back on a long tradition of work. They are of historical significance for the emancipation movement. Institutions that work on or with topics that were previously taboo and that, through the institution’s work, have been and are being brought out of the taboo zone and into public discourse are also relevant.

Associations, federations, networks, citizens’ initiatives and committed groups are considered relevant if they are of historical significance and campaign for important social or political issues. The institutions and projects have existed for many years or were founded a long time ago, are well connected, have established special initiatives and offered activities.

These include:

• Women’s shelters
• Women’s health institutions
• Cultural institutions
• Museums
• (Artist or activist) collectives/groups

 

Notes on permissible sources:

• Scholarly publications (articles in (specialist) journals, monographs, essays in edited volumes or anthologies, contributions to Festschriften and conference proceedings, reviews, etc.) can be used as sources to substantiate the notability of an article.
• Books published through self-publishing, pseudo-publishing or vanity publishing are admissible as sources, provided they are received in renowned newspapers and magazines or, owing to (the topicality/the historical circumstances of) the subject area, there is still little reception in secondary literature.
• Internet sources and websites are considered relevant provided they were written by third parties and are not purely promotional websites of the person/institution described. Statements taken from self-portrayals (history on a website, anniversary publication, brochure, etc.) are marked with the note “According to their own statements …” (or similar).
• We are aware that, especially for marginalised groups, it is often difficult to find sufficient valid information on the internet. Scholarly print publications count equally as evidence, as do the websites of the persons/institutions/groups described. However, these sources in particular should be critically examined as far as possible.
• Wikipedia is not sufficient as a source for references.

 

Machine translation: This article was translated automatically from the German original.