Racial bias on Wikipedia

Last updated

Edit-a-thon for Black History Month at Howard University, a historically-Black university. Howard University edit-a-thon B.JPG
Edit-a-thon for Black History Month at Howard University, a historically-Black university.
Edit-a-thon for Visual Artists of the African Diaspora at the Joan Mitchell Center, hosted by Black Lunch Table in New Orleans BLT NewOrleans 00.jpg
Edit-a-thon for Visual Artists of the African Diaspora at the Joan Mitchell Center, hosted by Black Lunch Table in New Orleans

The English Wikipedia has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage. This bias partially stems from an under-representation of people of color within its volunteer editor base. [1] In "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past," it is noted that article completeness and coverage is dependent on the interests of Wikipedians, not necessarily on the subject matter itself. [2] The past president of Wikimedia D.C., James Hare, asserted that "a lot of [ Black American history] is left out" of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors. [3] Articles about African topics that do exist are, according to some, largely edited by editors from Europe and North America and thus, they only reflect their knowledge and their consumption of media, which "tend to perpetuate a negative image" of Africa. [4] Maira Liriano of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture has argued that the lack of information regarding Black history on Wikipedia "makes it seem like it's not important." [5]

Contents

Different theories have been provided to explain these racial discrepancies. Jay Cassano, writing for Fast Company magazine, argued that Wikipedia's small proportion of Black editors is a result of the small Black presence within the technology sector, and a relative lack of reliable access to the internet. [5] Katherine Maher, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, has argued that the specific focuses in Wikipedia's content are representative of those of society as a whole. She said that Wikipedia could only represent that which was referenced in secondary sources, which historically have been favorable towards and focused on white men. [6] "Studies have shown that content on Wikipedia suffers from the bias of its editors – [who are] mainly technically inclined, English-speaking, white-collar men living in majority-Christian, developed countries in the Northern hemisphere." [7]

In addition to the racial bias on Wikipedia, public encyclopedias are generally vulnerable to vandalism by hate groups, such as white nationalist groups. [8]

Research findings and analysis

A challenge for editors who are trying to add Black history articles to Wikipedia is the requirement that potential article topics, such as historical individuals or events, meet Wikipedia's "notability" criteria. [7] Sara Boboltz of HuffPost wrote that the Wikipedia notability criteria "is a troubling problem for those fighting for more content about women and minorities", because "there's simply less [published] documentation on many accomplished women and minorities throughout history – they were often ignored, after all, or forced to make their contributions as someone else's assistant." [7] Furthermore, the work of researching and including suppressed racialized voices is a labor that is mostly done by Wikipedia editors who are themselves oppressed, creating a further burden for them. [9]

Maher stated that one issue is that "content on Wikipedia has to be backed up by secondary sources, sources that she says throughout history have contained a bias toward white men;" "people of color have not been represented in mainstream knowledge creation or inclusion in that knowledge," as "encyclopedias of old were mostly written by European men." [6]

The racial bias on Wikipedia works towards a reinforcement of racist beliefs of the readers, but conversely, a reparation of that bias could develop more empathy in the readers for racialized folks. [10] Efforts towards addressing bias have thus far created some space for white women, but not racialized or otherwise oppressed people. [11]

According to Peter Reynosa, "there is an underrepresentation of Latinos who write for Wikipedia," and as a result "many topics may remain uncovered, or at the least these topics will not be given the attention they deserve." [12]

In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) criticized Wikipedia for being "vulnerable to manipulation by neo-Nazis, white nationalists and racist academics seeking a wider audience for extreme views." [13] According to the SPLC,

"Civil POV-pushers can disrupt the editing process by engaging other users in tedious and frustrating debates or tie up administrators in endless rounds of mediation. Users who fall into this category include racialist academics and members of the human biodiversity, or HBD, blogging community... In recent years, the proliferation of far-right online spaces, such as white nationalist forums, alt-right boards and HBD blogs, has created a readymade pool of users that can be recruited to edit on Wikipedia en masse... The presence of white nationalists and other far-right extremists on Wikipedia is an ongoing problem that is unlikely to go away in the near future given the rightward political shift in countries where the majority of the site’s users live." [13]

The SPLC cited the article Race and intelligence as an example of the alt-right influence on Wikipedia, stating that at that time the article presented a "false balance" between fringe racialist views and the "mainstream perspective in psychology." [13]

In June 2020, Wikipedia was described in Slate as a "Battleground for Racial Justice" in response to criticisms of neutrality, coverage of George Floyd and his murder, Black Lives Matter, and article deletion nominations for one of the founders of Black Birders Week. [14]

According to Bjork-James, the racial bias of Wikipedia results not only in the underrepresentation of racialized people and knowledge, but also in the racist mischaracterization of historical and social phenomena which involve people other than whites. This means that the fixing of Wikipedia's racial bias cannot be achieved by the mere addition of more specialized content. Rather, it necessitates shifts in the presentation of many general-knowledge topics. Bjork-James writes that Wikipedia needs to broaden its use of reliable sources to include the large number of peer-reviewed academic publications in recent decades that endeavor to correct the Western orientation of most traditional sources. [15]

Responses

Sherry Antoine of AfroCROWD presents at WikiConference North America, August 2017. WikiConference North America 20170810-7225.jpg
Sherry Antoine of AfroCROWD presents at WikiConference North America, August 2017.

Attempts have been made to rectify racial biases through edit-a-thons, organised events at which Wikipedia editors attempt to improve coverage of certain topics and train new editors. In February 2015, multiple edit-a-thons were organised to commemorate Black History Month in the United States. [16] One such edit-a-thon was organized by the White House to create and improve articles on African Americans in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). [6] The Schomburg Center, Howard University, and National Public Radio, also coordinated edit-a-thons to improve coverage of black history. [3] "Wikipedia editors … have held 'edit-a-thons,'" to "encourage others to come learn how to ... contribute content on subjects that have been largely ignored." [7] Liriano has endorsed Wikipedia edit-a-thons, stating that for Wikipedia's content to "be representative, everyone has to participate."

In 2015 and 2016, the Schomburg Center held a "Black Lives Matters" edit-a-thon to coincide with Black History Month. Volunteer editors added coverage about Black historical individuals and about key concepts in Black culture (e.g., about the Harlem Book Fair and about Black costume designer Judy Dearing). [7] New articles about Black history and Black historical individuals were also created. The 2016 edit-a-thon was organized by AfroCROWD. [17]

Wikipedia editors Michael Mandiberg and Dorothy Howard have organized diversity-themed edit-a-thons to "help raise awareness of some of the glaring holes on Wikipedia, and the need for people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge to fill them." [6] Liriano stated "It's really important that people of color know that there's this gap" of coverage of Black history on Wikipedia "and they can correct it" by participating as editors. [7] In the US, the National Science Foundation has provided $200,000 to fund research on the issue of bias in the coverage of topics in Wikipedia. [7] The National Science Foundation has commissioned two studies of why there is bias in Wikipedia editing. [6]

The Wikimedia Foundation is trying to deal with the issue of racial bias in Wikipedia. In 2015, it was reported that the Wikimedia Foundation made numerous grants "to organizations in the 'Global South'—including Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East—with plans to improve [coverage of Global South topics in] Wikipedia." [7] While Wikipedia supports these edit-a-thons, the organization has always stressed that adequate citations must always be present and neutrality must always be maintained. [12] Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has stated that the Wikimedia Foundation has "completely failed" to meet its goals of resolving the lack of diversity amongst Wikipedia editors. [6]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Croatian Wikipedia</span> The Croatian-language version of Wikipedia

The Croatian Wikipedia is the Croatian language version of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, started on February 16, 2003. This version has 219,902 articles and a total of 6.88 million edits have been made. It has 310,446 registered users, out of which 487 have been active in the last 30 days, and 13 administrators. Throughout 2014, fewer than two dozen editors made more than 100 edits a month; around 150 made more than 5 edits a month. Around 750 articles are ranked as featured.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of Wikipedia</span>

The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been criticized since its creation in 2001. Most of the criticism has been directed toward its content, community of established volunteer users, process, and rules. Critics have questioned its factual reliability, the readability and organization of its articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political, corporate, institutional, and national lines. Conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wikipedia</span> Free online crowdsourced encyclopedia

Wikipedia is a free content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the use of the wiki-based editing system MediaWiki. Wikipedia is the largest and most-read reference work in history. It is consistently ranked as one of the ten most popular websites in the world, and as of 2024 is ranked the fifth most visited website on the Internet by Semrush. Founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger on January 15, 2001, Wikipedia is hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, an American nonprofit organization that employs a staff of over 700 people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Reliability of Wikipedia</span>

The reliability of Wikipedia and its user-generated editing model, particularly its English-language edition, has been questioned and tested. Wikipedia is written and edited by volunteer editors who generate online content with the editorial oversight of other volunteer editors via community-generated policies and guidelines. The reliability of the project has been tested statistically through comparative review, analysis of the historical patterns, and strengths and weaknesses inherent in its editing process. The online encyclopedia has been criticized for its factual unreliability, principally regarding its content, presentation, and editorial processes. Studies and surveys attempting to gauge the reliability of Wikipedia have mixed results. Wikipedia's reliability was frequently criticized in the 2000s but has been improved; it has been generally praised in the late 2010s and early 2020s.

Washington Summit Publishers (WSP) is a white nationalist publisher based in Augusta, Georgia, which produces and sells books on race and intelligence and related topics. The company is run by white supremacist Richard B. Spencer, who also ran the defunct white supremacist National Policy Institute.

Wikipedia has been studied extensively. Between 2001 and 2010, researchers published at least 1,746 peer-reviewed articles about the online encyclopedia. Such studies are greatly facilitated by the fact that Wikipedia's database can be downloaded without help from the site owner.

Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the community of editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The terms reflect differing opinions on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia and corresponding tendencies either to delete or to include a given encyclopedia article.

In the English version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, notability is a criterion to determine whether a topic merits a separate Wikipedia article. It is described in the guideline "Wikipedia:Notability". In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". The notability guideline was introduced in 2006 and has since been subject to various controversies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wikipedia community</span> Volunteers who create and maintain Wikipedia

The Wikipedia community, collectively and individually known as Wikipedians, is an online community of volunteers who create and maintain Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. Since August 2012, the word "Wikipedian" has been an Oxford Dictionary entry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Outline of Wikipedia</span> Overview of and topical guide to Wikipedia

The following outline is provided as an overview of and a topical guide to Wikipedia:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Edit-a-thon</span> Editing collaboration on a specific topic

An edit-a-thon is an event where some editors of online communities such as Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap, and LocalWiki edit and improve a specific topic or type of content. The events typically include basic editing training for new editors and may be combined with a more general social meetup. The word is a portmanteau of "edit" and "marathon". An edit-a-thon can either be "in-person" or online or a blended version of both. If it is not in-person, it is usually called a "virtual edit-a-thon" or "online edit-a-thon".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gender bias on Wikipedia</span> Gender gap problem in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects

Gender bias on Wikipedia is a term used to describe various gender-related disparities on Wikipedia, particularly the overrepresentation of men among both volunteer contributors and article subjects, as well as lesser coverage of and topics primarily of interest to women.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Art+Feminism</span> Annual worldwide Wikipedia edit-a-thon

Art and Feminism is an annual worldwide edit-a-thon to add content to Wikipedia about women artists, which started in 2014. The project has been described as "a massive multinational effort to correct a persistent bias in Wikipedia, which is disproportionately written by and about men".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Women in Red</span> WikiProject to address the systemic gender bias in Wikipedia

Women in Red is a WikiProject addressing the current gender bias in Wikipedia content. The project focuses on creating content regarding women's biographies, women's works, and women's issues.

Perceived ideological bias on Wikipedia, especially on its English-language edition, has been the subject of academic analysis and public criticism of the project. Questions relate to whether its content is biased due to the political, religious, or other ideologies its volunteer editors may adhere to. These all draw concerns as to the possible effects this may have on the encyclopedia's reliability.

Wiki Loves Pride is a campaign to improve LGBT-related content on Wikipedia and other projects in the Wikimedia movement.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Black Lunch Table</span>

The Black Lunch Table (BLT) is a United States-based oral-history archiving project founded in 2005, focused on the lives and work of Black artists. Its work includes oral archiving, salons, peer teaching workshops, meetups, and Wikipedia edit-a-thons. The BLT brings people together to engage in dialogues about the writing, recording, and promoting inclusive art history. One of its aims is to address the racial and gender bias on Wikipedia by encouraging Wikipedia articles about African-American artists.

Coverage of American politics in Wikipedia is a subject that has received substantial attention from the media. Since its founding in 2001, Wikipedia has provided coverage of five United States presidential elections, and six mid-term elections at the federal level, as well as numerous "off-year" state elections and special elections.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deletion of articles on Wikipedia</span>

Volunteer editors of Wikipedia delete articles from the online encyclopedia regularly, following processes that have been formulated by the site's community over time. The most common route is the outright deletion of articles that clearly violate the rules of the website. Other mechanisms include an intermediate collaborative process that bypasses a complete discussion, and a whole debate at the dedicated forum called Articles for deletion (AfD). As a technical action, deletion can only be done by a subset of editors assigned particular specialized privileges by the community, called administrators. An omission that has been carried out can be contested by appeal to the deleting administrator or on another discussion board called Deletion review (DRV).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jason Moore (Wikipedia editor)</span> American Wikipedia editor (born 1984/1985)

Jason Moore is an American Wikipedia editor among the English Wikipedia's most active contributors by edit count. Editing since 2007 as "Another Believer", he has specialized in current events, with coverage including the COVID-19 pandemic, George Floyd protests, and the culture of Portland, Oregon, where he is based. On Wikipedia, Moore has created and developed editor affinity groups for joint work on these topics. As an organizer in the Wikimedia movement, Moore has hosted meet-ups and edit-a-thons to train new editors.

References

  1. ↑ Melamed, Samantha. "Edit-athon aims to put left-out black artists into Wikipedia". Philly.com. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  2. ↑ Rosenzweig, Roy (1 June 2006). "Can History Be Open Source? Wikipedia and the Future of the Past". Journal of American History. 93 (1): 117–146. doi:10.2307/4486062. ISSN   0021-8723. JSTOR   4486062.
  3. 1 2 Smith, Jada (20 February 2015). "Howard University Fills in Wikipedia's Gaps in Black History". The New York Times . Archived from the original on 23 February 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  4. ↑ Goko, Colleen. "Drive launched to 'Africanise' Wikipedia". BusinessDay . Archived from the original on 6 July 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  5. 1 2 Cassano, Jay (29 January 2015). "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?". Fast Company . Archived from the original on 10 May 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Lapowsky, Issie. "Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia". Wired . Archived from the original on 14 November 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Boboltz, Sara (15 April 2015). "Editors Are Trying To Fix Wikipedia's Gender And Racial Bias Problem". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 21 August 2017. Retrieved 20 August 2017.
  8. ↑ Klein, Adam (1 November 2012). "Slipping Racism into the Mainstream: A Theory of Information Laundering". Communication Theory. 22 (4): 427–448. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01415.x. ISSN   1050-3293.
  9. ↑ Lemieux, Mackenzie Emily; Zhang, Rebecca; Tripodi, Francesca (1 January 2023). ""Too Soon" to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Wikipedia". Big Data & Society. 10 (1): 20539517231165490. doi: 10.1177/20539517231165490 . ISSN   2053-9517 . Retrieved 5 December 2023.
  10. ↑ Ezell, Jerel M. (15 June 2021). "Empathy plasticity: decolonizing and reorganizing Wikipedia and other online spaces to address racial equity". Ethnic & Racial Studies. 44 (8): 1324–1336. doi:10.1080/01419870.2020.1851383. ISSN   0141-9870.
  11. ↑ Adele Godoy Vrana; Sengupta, Anasuya; Bouterse, Siko (2020). "Toward a Wikipedia For and From Us All". In Joseph Reagle; Jackie Koerner (eds.). Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution. The MIT Press. Retrieved 5 December 2023.
  12. 1 2 Reynosa, Peter (3 December 2015). "Why Don't More Latinos Contribute To Wikipedia?". El Tecolote. Archived from the original on 8 December 2015. Retrieved 12 June 2020.
  13. 1 2 3 Ward, Justin (12 March 2018). "Wikipedia wars: inside the fight against far-right editors, vandals and sock puppets". The Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
  14. ↑ Harrison, Stephen (9 June 2020). "How Wikipedia Became a Battleground for Racial Justice". Slate. Retrieved 1 July 2020.
  15. ↑ Bjork-James, Carwil (3 July 2021). "New maps for an inclusive Wikipedia: decolonial scholarship and strategies to counter systemic bias". New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 27 (3): 207–228. doi:10.1080/13614568.2020.1865463. ISSN   1361-4568 . Retrieved 7 December 2023.
  16. ↑ Smith, Jada F. (20 February 2015). "Howard University Fills in Wikipedia's Gaps in Black History". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 21 August 2017. Retrieved 1 October 2018.
  17. ↑ Allum, Cynthia (29 February 2016). "Women leading movements to champion equality on Wikipedia". The New York Times . Archived from the original on 10 August 2017. Retrieved 20 August 2017.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.