Home » News » Kate Middleton Wedding Dress Causes Wikipedia Controversy

Kate Middleton Wedding Dress Causes Wikipedia Controversy

The wedding dress, designed by Sarah Burton for Alexander McQueen was commissioned by Kate, and was later displayed at Buckingham Palace over the summer—and was a fan for many across the world—there were also those who believe it was not “notable enough to be on wikipedia.”

Kate’s wedding dress has had a quite impact on the world of fashion, weddings and the general populace of women, so it is a surprise to find out that its prominence in style and fashion history has come under the intense debate.

During Wikimania 2012 conference last week, the annual Wikimedia get together, in which co-founder Jimmy Wales expressed the controversy after asking a question to the audience about Wikipedia’s supposed gender gap. Wales led the people attention by explaining that many users fail to see the value of some of the female-friendly articles and take the Kate Middleton as an example.


When the Wikipedia page for “Wedding dress of Kate Middleton” appeared the day of the marriage, it was aired rapidly and prompted for deletion. There was a debate has been created between the editors about the relevance on its Talk page. “This is frankly trivial, and surely isn’t notable enough to be on wikipedia. Request deletion,” one commenter noted.

Meanwhile another added: “The sheer presence of this article is one of the lowest points ever reached by Wikipedia! What amazes me is that there’s acculturatede people (since the article was well written) who has such interests, and free time to lose to devoted themselves for such totally irrelevant arguments.”

Fortunately, the article was remain in research of users and chock full of information. The editors who were positive minded for the article expressed that most of the Wikipedia’s articles cover niche topics and also explained that they have a room for improvement in the style of arena;

“One of the weaknesses in Wikipedia’s coverage of fashion at the moment is that there is not nearly enough coverage of specific examples,” they wrote. “There is an analogy here with painting. There are articles on movements and schools in art, there are articles about particular artists, often illustrated by examples, and there are some articles about particular works of art.”

“It needs to be that way – there is a need to understand that there was a Dutch fashion for painting interiors in the 17th century, or that painters were heavily influenced by Caravaggio, that there are a number of painters who are considered particularly fine or influential, but in the end it is the paintings that are the point of it all,” they continued their explanation.

“Whether Girl with a Pearl Earring is on a par with this dress (or any other) isn’t relevant there. And for goodness sake, there are hundreds or articles on characters in TV dramas, so why worry about ones on dresses? We are free to read the ones that interest us.

About Sofia Khalid