Wikipedia has been accredited as the free source of all human knowledge—a hefty title to be held up to. In my last blog post, I provided a deeper exploration of the term "microcelebrity." As I explained, this is a fairly new concept, one that has yet to be widely officially defined. Thus, unfortunately, there is no wikipedia entry on this topic.
Luckily, the traditional celebrity is a more widely-known term and this has a fairly extensive page here: Wikipedia: Celebrity
According to wikipedia:
"A celebrity is a person, who has a prominent profile in day-to-day media and because of this commands some degree of public fascination and influence. A celebrity is usually expected to be wealthy (commonly denoted as a person with fame and fortune), implied with great popular appeal, prominence in a particular field, and is easily recognized by the general public."
One of the most interesting aspects of this entry is the section where global cultural implications are discussed. Because wikipedia is a universal source of knowledge, it acknowledges the role that the concept of celebrity plays in English-speaking countries but also the implications on a global stage. While everyone, no matter their nationality, has an idea of what celebrity means (typically "a famous person"), this section of the page explains that systems of fame and celebrity and renown are different in different regions.
Another particularly fascinating aspect of the page is the "Famous for being Famous section," which explains celebrity phenomena such as Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian (photos of both women are featured prominently on the page). I think it is especially interesting that these women are so ubiquitous in today's culture that their faces appear literally next to the definition of celebrity. This relates to my topic of micro celebrity—not because these women are famous for their online personas, but because they are not famous for their professional ability or acclaim. Like the micro celebrity, these women appear to be "famous for no reason." Unfortunately, because this idea of unwarranted fame is rather new, this section is underdeveloped. I would like to see more examples of celebrities who have been able to brand themselves in a way to make them famous for no apparent reason, how they've done it, and what this means in today's culture.
Another interesting section of the page is titled "15 Minutes of Fame," a phrase which Andy Warhol famously coined to describe falling in to and out of the limelight rather quickly—a phenomenon which we all have witnessed (does anyone remember Tila Tequila?). This is a concept that would be fascinating to explore through the lens of micro celebrity, examining online personas that are incredibly popular and "followed" for a time but then fall out of the cultural spotlight just as quickly as the fall in to it. This section, as well as the section on celebrities who have become famous for utilizing social media, are wildly underdeveloped. Celebrities these days are not famous for their work, they're famous for their brands. In order to keep up with modern day definitions of media popularity, Wikipedia needs to develop and expand these sections, maybe even putting them at the top of the page.
Most importantly about this page, something that I have yet to mention (but probably should have said right off the bat) is that this page is written in personal essay style. Even more interestingly, wikipedia puts a disclaimer at the top of the page that this entry only reflects Western world views. Why is this? Is it because the concept of celebrity and fame is a mainly Western concept? Wikipedia beseeches at the top of the page for an editor to re-write the entry in "encyclopedic format." But, how does one capture the nuances and social implications on a macro and micro scale without making it personal, anecdotal, and entirely western? Most globally influential celebrities come from western cultures. There have been studies conducted (stay tuned, I'll find this later) of other countries where people have been asked whom the most famous person they know is, and names like "Paris Hilton", "Kim Kardashian", and "Justin Bieber" are the most commonly named. This makes me wonder, is celebrity an inherently Western concept?
This page needs some major reworking from editors from non-western cultures. In order for the world to truly understand what fame means, we need to get the viewpoints from people all over the world. The talk page of this entry is hilarious: it's basically different scholars fighting about who is "famous enough" for their photo to be placed on the page. I wonder, is it possible for a page about celebrity utilizing specific examples to be completely neutral, without fan favorites being prominently featured? The history of the talk page continues on and on and on, going in to why certain celebrities should or should not be mentioned. David Beckham, for example, was deleted on the page because he is "not globally famous enough." This is especially interesting considering that his image was replaced by the images of Justin Bieber and Paris Hilton at the top of the page. These are figures from western-culture. And yes, it is true that they do have global influence. It's fascinating to me that the page is attacked for only reflecting western culture, yet figures from western culture are the most influential on the global stage.