Racial bias on Wikipedia

The English Wikipedia has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an under-representation of non-white people within its editor base.[1] The past president of Wikimedia D.C., James Hare, noted that "a lot of black history is left out" of Wikipedia, due to articles predominately being written by white editors.[2] Articles that do exist on African topics are, according to some, largely edited by editors from Europe and North America and thus reflect only their knowledge and consumption of media, which "tend to perpetuate a negative image" of Africa.[3] 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."[4]

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.[4] 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. When historically speaking- blacks or black Americans have made significant advances and achievements in society.[5] “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”.[6]


According to Maira Liriano, the associate chief librarian at New York City’s Schomburg Center, one of the biggest challenges is getting new editors to keep editing Wikipedia after the edit-a-thon is over.[6] One challenge with retaining new editors is that the “[n]erdy white guys” who predominate as Wikipedia editors “…aren't always warm and nurturing” to new editors.[6] For example, when new editors add content on Black history, their content may be deleted by established editors. As well, when new editors are trying to advocate for the inclusion of Black history content on Wikipedia’s talk pages (each article has an associated talk page for discussion of changes), the “[c]omments [to new editors] on [Wikipedia article] talk pages can be very blunt.”[6] An issue for women of colour is that “women in many communities have less leisure time than men,” according to Siko Bouterse, the director of community resources at the Wikimedia Foundation.[6]

Another challenge for editors 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.[6] HuffPost states 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”.[6]

Maher states 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.”[5] Another issue is the “often abusive relationships between editors” on talk pages, which “…can make Wikipedia a less than welcoming place for …minority groups looking to get involved” in editing Wikipedia.[5] The Wikipedia editing "...community can also appear hostile, both to outsiders looking in and to those involved in it" by editing articles; indeed, article "[t]alk pages [discussions about articles] routinely devolve into seemingly petty arguments".[7]

There has been "...criticism of bias [on Wikipedia], both on individual pages [articles] and as a systemic mind-set that the editing network has as a whole."[7] William Beutler, author of the blog The Wikipedian and a consultant on Wikipedia issues for clients, states that "...certain areas of Wikipedia, including certain political areas of Wikipedia...tend to be controlled by a small number of editors who tend to see things the same way."[7] Various communities have raised concerns about "...Wikipedia and its editors, saying that the pages had obvious systemic bias against them."[7]


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.[8] 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).[5] The Schomburg Center, Howard University, and National Public Radio, also coordinated edit-a-thons to improve coverage of black history.[2] "Wikipedia editors… have held 'edit-a-thons,'" to "....encourage others to come learn how to…contribute content on subjects that have been largely ignored.”[6] 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)[6] New articles about Black history and Black historical individuals were also created. The 2016 edit-a-thon was organized by AfroCROWD.[9]

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”.[5] 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.[6] 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.[6] The National Science Foundation has commissioned two studies of why there is bias in Wikipedia editing.[5]

The Wikimedia Foundation is trying to deal with the issue of racial bias in Wikipedia. In 2015, it was reported that the Wikipedia 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.“[6] 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.[10] 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.[5]

See also


  1. Melamed, Samantha. "Edit-athon aims to put left-out black artists into Wikipedia". Philly.com. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  2. Smith, Jada. "Howard University Fills in Wikipedia's Gaps in Black History". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  3. Goko, Colleen. "Drive launched to 'Africanise' Wikipedia". BusinessDay. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  4. Cassano, Jay. "Black History Matters, So Why Is Wikipedia Missing So Much Of It?". Fast Company. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  5. Lapowsky, Issie. "Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia". Wired. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  6. Boboltz, Sara (15 April 2015). "Editors Are Trying To Fix Wikipedia's Gender And Racial Bias Problem". www.huffingtonpost.ca. Huffington Post. Retrieved 20 August 2017.
  7. Montellaro, Zach (18 November 2015). "How Does Political Wikipedia Stay Apolitical?: The seventh-most visited site is one of the first online listings for any elected official—but how does a site that stakes its reputation on neutrality walk that line". www.theatlantic.com. The Atlantic. Retrieved 20 August 2017.
  8. "Howard University Fills in Wikipedia's Gaps in Black History". Retrieved 1 October 2018.
  9. Allum, Cynthia (29 February 2016). "Women leading movements to champion equality on Wikipedia". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 August 2017.
  10. Reynosa, Peter. "Why Don't More Latinos Contribute To Wikipedia?". El Tecolote. Retrieved 3 December 2015.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.