Posted by: bluesyemre | January 7, 2021

Wikipedia’s biggest challenge awaits in 2021

Changes proposed by the Wikimedia Foundation to diversify its community of editors raise existential questions for the online encyclopedia.

FACTS ARE STUBBORN things. And that stubbornness was a vital asset for Wikipedia in 2020, as it unapologetically banned from its pages disinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic and the presidential election. The contrast was sharp with global digital platforms like Facebook and YouTube, which slowlyand often ineffectually, responded to false political and scientific claims living on their servers.

Yet as Wikipedia begins a new year with a burnished reputation as a trusted, fact-based resource, it faces thorny questions beyond accuracy that threaten its grand, encyclopedic mission: Can the community of editors and administrators who collect and present the facts become as sturdy and reliable as the facts themselves? The fear is that unless Wikipedia diversifies its editing ranks, it will be unable to produce the needed context, proportionality, fairness, and imagination to accurately collect the world’s knowledge.

In 2021 the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs the more than 300 different versions of Wikipedia, plans to finalize a uniform code of conduct that details unacceptable behavior among the project’s editors—including insults, sexual harassment, and doxing—and assigns corresponding punishments. The new system, which is being fashioned in consultation with the editors and administrators across the encyclopedias, would differ significantly from the current, decentralized disciplinary apparatus. Not only would there be uniform standards of conduct, but there likely would be easier access to the protection of privacy for those who make complaints of harassment.

These changes are vital to having a diverse community of editors, its advocates say, because the current system places a heavy burden on the marginalized groups most frequently targeted—women, people of color, and queer people—by having them speak out publicly against their abusers and risk retaliation. A foundation report on gender equity recounted a number of examples of harassment that followed from calling out misbehavior, like the editor who described having porn posted on their user page after complaining of porn posted on another editor’s user page. Once a harassment complaint is public, there can be added pressure on the person being harassed to accept minimal punishments against abusive editors who are popular in the community. Prevented from getting justice, editors who have been targeted by harassers frequently choose to leave.

At the same time, the foundation is also proposing to expand its board from 10 members to 16, to give more influence to experts from outside the community. Together, these moves by the foundation would steer Wikipedia toward a path that is less inward facing and more reliant on the outside professionals at the foundation.

The fear among some longtime editors is that these changes could stifle the grassroots energy that has taken the project so far in its 20 years. Wikipedia isn’t a social club, they would point out, but a project meant to accomplish something and thus more likely to generate personality clashes and hurt feelings. An inordinate focus on civility, the argument goes, can be a distraction from doing the work; stifle the passion, and you’ll have articles with the tone and vitality of an annual report.

The opposite fear, of course, is that without any changes Wikipedia will fail in its ultimate mission to provide, in the words of its early visionary, Jimmy Wales, “free access to the sum of all human knowledge” because its active editors will remain heavily skewed toward white men from wealthy countries with a tech background. Consider the women running for the United States Senate, or carrying out Nobel-prize-caliber science, who were judged “not notable enough” to warrant a Wikipedia article. Or the range of important African American institutions and people, like the Greater Bethel AME Church in Harlem or the costume designer Judy Dearing, whose articles were only created during edit-a-thons dedicated to expanding what is included in Wikipedia.

Ultimately, both sides in this dispute recognize that what appears in the encyclopedia is a reflection of its editors—they just disagree about whether the community of editors needs to change how it operates.

MORE THAN A decade ago, I wrote an essay comparing Wikipedia to a vibrant city, how it “can send you down unlikely alleyways” via the many links embedded on a single page: There are the links to articles about other people or places mentioned; links to categories of articles on similar topics; links to articles on the same topic in different languages with unexpected illustrations, which, of course, have their own peculiar connections. The entire enterprise was city-like in that adventurous, ambitious people had gathered to build something lasting together, expanding up and down and all around.

In my conception, to visit Wikipedia was to be a flaneur, wandering unharmed from interesting edifice to interesting edifice. I paid little attention to those in marginalized groups who find Wikipedia full of frightening dark alleys and abrasive characters. In 2020, I decided to travel to some of the unwelcome corners of Wikipedia that I didn’t write about a decade ago.

That’s how I came across an article obsessed with exposing the clay feet of Benjamin Banneker, a Black inventor and scientist in colonial America. This was not the Wikipedia article about Banneker himself, which covers his long life in inventing, surveying, and mathematics, but a purported companion piece— thousands of words long, with 250 footnotes—entitled “Mythology of Benjamin Banneker.” The article finds examples of praise for Banneker for building a wooden clock or surveying the area that became Washington, DC, and then quotes accounts questioning whether the historical record supports such praise. Over the years, editors have shown up to complain about the article, including one wondering whether the Einstein article should, similarly, quote from the book Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. But objections to this and other obscure, potentially offensive articles rarely carry the day unless an experienced editor or administrator can be enlisted to mount a campaign to reverse course.

Since he began editing in 2004, Ian Ramjohn, who is from Trinidad and Tobago, has carefully tracked how marginalized groups are treated within Wikipedia’s editing corps and on its pages. He’s seen progress in driving out racism and sexism in articles that receive a lot of views. “Problems tend to remain in more obscure topics,” he wrote in an email. “The fewer people who have seen an article, the less likely it is that someone will have done the work to push back against this kind of thing. A lot of Wikipedians avoid conflict, so they won’t be inclined to start something. Others may not feel confident enough in their stock of social capital—I can take risks that someone who hasn’t been around as long as me might not—or want to endure the stress of these fights.”

In some future version of Wikipedia that takes harassment more seriously, one can imagine an increasingly diverse crew of editors empowered to oppose offensive content, even if that content is fact-based. In my travels, I also wound up at a detailed account of a Nazi-produced children’s book that, until recently, linked to a neo-Nazi’s site where an English translation was sold. One visitor left a comment wondering if every slur against Jews really needed a link to a library’s copy of that particular section: “We need a RS [reliable source] for the claims about what the book says, not the hateful propaganda book itself!”

For that 2009 essay, I had looked to the writings of Lewis Mumford, a historian and great thinker of cities who saw tolerance for outsiders as at the root of urban life. “Even before the city is a place of fixed residence,” he wrote, “it begins as a meeting place to which people periodically return: The magnet comes before the container, and this ability to attract nonresidents to it for intercourse and spiritual stimulus no less than trade remains one of the essential criteria of the city, a witness to its essential dynamism, as opposed to the more fixed and indrawn form of the village, hostile to the outsider.”

This is the gnawing challenge for Wikipedia. After a period of wild, unrestrained growth, it needs some civilizing laws. The equivalent of a fair housing act and safety inspections to ensure it won’t exclude certain groups from its pages and allow hateful material to grow and fester. Just as it takes more than bricks to build a city, it takes more than facts to build a thriving encyclopedia.

Noam Cohen (@noamcohen) is a journalist and author of The Know-It-Alls: The Rise of Silicon Valley as a Political Powerhouse and Social Wrecking Ball, which uses the history of computer science and Stanford University to understand the libertarian ideas promoted by tech leaders. While working for The New York Times, Cohen wrote some of the earliest articles about Wikipedia, bitcoin, Wikileaks, and Twitter. He lives with his family in Brooklyn.

https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedias-biggest-challenge-awaits-2021/


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Categories

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: