Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality

by Zachary J McDowell, Matthew A. Vetter

A contemporary examination of what information is represented, how that information is presented, and who gets to participate (and serve as gatekeeper) in the world's largest online repository for information, Wikipedia. Bridging contemporary education research that addresses the 'experiential epistemology' of learning to use Wikipedia with an understanding of how the inception and design of the platform assists this, the book explores the complex disconnect between the encyclopedia's formalized policy and the often unspoken norms that govern its knowledge-making processes. At times both laudatory and critical, this book illustrates Wikipedia's struggle to combat systemic biases and lack of representation of marginalized topics as it becomes the standard bearer for equitable and accessible representation of reality in an age of digital disinformation and fake news. Being an important and timely contribution to the field of media and communication studies, this book will appeal to academics and researchers interested in digital disinformation, information literacy, and representation on the Internet, as well as students studying these topics.

Genres: Nonfiction

140 pages, Hardcover

Published August 31, 2021

Reviews

[Sportyrod · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have a soft spot for Wikipedia. People make fun of it but it was a huge help for me. When I was in school, whenever there was an assignment, the people who got the best marks were the first few who could make it to the library quickest. They’d borrow every book on the topic, and the rest of us, like me, would have to put something together from a few paragraphs from each encyclopedia that wasn’t allowed to be borrowed. Also, a bit of a laggard, even though it was around, I didn’t get the internet or a home computer until I was 22 in 2002. I was curious by nature and wanted to learn but didn’t have the means. It’s the main reason I’m good at geography. One map and I could memorise every country in the world. And then Wikipedia came out in 2001 for free and my world opened up just like that. I went from regurgitating information I heard from others to finding out things for myself. I went from feeling/being dumb to knowing things.

Unfortunately, first impressions last. “It’s unreliable/inaccurate because anyone can edit it.” Well, things have come a long way since then. The authors have published this critique of Wikipedia, exposing their limitations and pushing back on some long-held views on the stigma it hasn’t shrugged off.

Let’s start with some trivia:

-Largest and most used encyclopedia in history
-13th most visited website in the world
-9 billion views per month
-Wikipedia would span over 2657 Brittanica-sized volumes

And then the issues:

-homogeneity: the average editor is white, male, educated (only 17% of biographies are on women)
-gaps in representation
-epistemological narrowness (only drawing information from printed sources, not oral)
-difficulty managing volunteer labor (editors write about what interests them, and if they aren’t as interested in less mainstream topics, what then?)
-gatekeeping impulses and harrassing behaviour (creepy a-holes harrassing women and editors deleting stuff from new editors as a turf war)

The solutions, you will need to read for yourself. Overall they seemed quite balanced but it did strike me as odd when they emphasised so much on representation issues. My views are, be part of the solution, not just the problem. Easier said than done and not always possible. But still, if people are complaining that articles aren’t there or are not broad enough to cover everyone, well, “anyone can edit” it so what are you waiting for? Also, I do feel sorry for volunteers. They give their time. Obviously they get something from it so it’s not purely altruism. But I feel like, when it’s free and it’s run by volunteers, then what else can you expect. You can’t force them to write articles on topics they don’t know or care about.

I was hoping to have been inspired to edit more things on Wikipedia prior to writing this review, but it hasn’t happened yet.

To readers contemplating reading this…go for it, but keep in mind it is academic so not for easy reading. The themes are interesting though. Oh, and if you won’t read it, at least look up Clarice Phelps, especially feminists.

[Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lots of good info but seems incomplete

This was a decent intro to the issues of harassment, gatekeeping, and other barriers to inclusion that take place behind the scenes in the Wikipedia community. These barriers contribute to the imbalance of coverage on Wikipedia on people, topics, and issues (especially the lack of articles on notable women, LGBT, or non-white persons/cultural topics).

One issue is that these topics typically receive less coverage in books or newspapers, which limits the ability of Wikipedia editors to cover these topics (if no reputable source writes about a topic, how can you source a Wikipedia article on that topic?) Essentially the biases in the publishing sphere are carried over to Wikipedia since it relies on these written works to verify information and determine notability for inclusion.

Another issue is that nearly all editors are white men of European descent. The book posits this is partly because the system was designed by this group, and policies were aimed at the issues experienced by this group in the beginning. In its infancy, Wikipedia was not considering what it takes to build a community that is welcoming and inclusive to people outside the originating group.

Regardless of the cause of the homogeneity of editors, it contributes to a lack of coverage on issues that may not be as relevant to this group. On top of that, Wikipedia is not welcoming to newcomers, and people who are not part of the homogeneous group have consistently written about and expressed they feel excluded and targeted.

The book posits that the main tenets of Wikipedia to "Be bold" and "Assume good faith" when making edits set the tone for a less inclusive community. They ask: Which groups are more likely to get punished for making bold edits? Which group is more likely to receive the assumption they are working in good faith? The book posits that historically underprivileged groups tend to get more pushback because they often publish about topics which may not seem notable or important to the core group. I'm not sure I necessarily see the same issue with these directives as the authors of this book, but they're interesting ideas to think about.

Another big issue discussed (and one that I found the most off-putting and upsetting when I was an active Wikipedia editor) was the prevalence of gatekeeping and tendency to harass newcomers or anyone who did not understand the complex rules that govern Wikipedia. There is a strong deletionist streak where pages by new users are rapidly deleted instead of improved, and it takes a huge administrative process to get an article restored. This results in many pages about notable topics getting deleted while other topics are much more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt and improved instead of deleted.

Lots of cool ideas. However, the book was overly wordy and repeated the same ideas multiple times without much variation. It was also surprisingly full of typos. Definitely needs an editor to re-read. The authors kept claiming to have solutions and ideas, yet they never materialized. It almost felt like the authors were afraid to speak blunty or clearly. They complained about the overuse of jargon in the Wikipedia community, yet the book was full of jargon. They are so in the community that they have a hard time understanding how to convey all that understanding into a presentation that's accessible to people outside the community.

My other big beef with the book was the lack of concrete examples of each point. The authors shared two examples that I remember of articles that faced issues with deletion. One of a woman scientist who's article was deleted for being non-notable until she actually won a Nobel Prize in Physics. The other was a black woman scientist who discovered a new chemical substance and after her article was deleted it took hundreds of hours by volunteers to get her article reinstated. I feel like I could come up with more examples just off the top of my head, and I think examples would help make the issues much more clear to readers.

Overall I really like where the authors were going but the book would be greatly improved by:

An editor to fix the numerous typos

Many more concrete examples of the points as opposed to vague explanations

Cutting out the multitude of paragraphs that say the same thing over and over in almost the exact same wording.

[Stephen · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well researched and completely free and open access book in the spirit of Wikipedia itself. The book looks at what Wikipedia is, its strengths and weaknesses. It describes some of the important policies that have developed, and how they confounded some of the early criticisms of the very concept of the encyclopaedia. It speaks warmly of the last good place on the Internet (which has been said elsewhere too). It also looks at how the policies also don't always live up to expectations, and the issues of systematic bias and other such problems that are very evident in Wikipedia.

All in all this is a well researched piece. It describes how Wikipedia itself has become a cultural phenomenon and thus influences the representation of reality. There are benefits and drawbacks, but the writers are, on the whole, positive about the project.

There is discussion of some of the policies, like the "be bold" policy, which the authors see as gendered. They feel that the policy benefits Western white males. A criticism I would have of their analysis is that, while I can see how policies might benefit people based on levels of educational access, literacy, etc., I don't think they really demonstrated how the policy disadvantages non western white males in a project which values the anonymity of its editors, and where it is usually unknown what race or sex another editor is. I am not saying they are wrong. I expect they think it is to do with culture and expectations or something... but that is not well explained.

Anyway you can't really go wrong with free books, and this one is thorough in what it describes.

[Sally Kenney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short and repetitious--an article masquerading as a book? Still, very accessible and I learned a lot if sometimes a bit too celebratory.