Re: <nettime> How to Study Wikipedia’s Neutrality – According to Wikipedia

[André Rebentisch via nettime-l <nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>]

"Understanding who actually edits Wikipedia could trigger changes that
prioritise a greater diversity of editors. "

I can't see how this would be desirable as the Foundation does not
select editors or investigate their ethnic and social background.

-- A

Am Mo., 4. Aug. 2025 um 07:58 Uhr schrieb Heather Ford via nettime-l <
nettime-l@lists.nettime.org>:

> Hi folks,
> I'm new to this list but Geert suggested I post about Wikimedia's draft
> guidelines for researchers studying Wikipedia's neutrality. Below and at
>
> https://networkcultures.org/blog/2025/08/01/how-to-study-wikipedias-neutrality-according-to-wikipedia/
> .
> It's a difficult time for the Wikimedia Foundation right now but I still
> think that this does no favours to the organisation or the community it
> represents.
> best
> heather.
>
> https://hblog.org/
> Professor, University of Technology Sydney
> On Gadigal Land
>
>
> How to Study Wikipedia’s Neutrality – According to Wikipedia
>
> By Heather Ford <https://networkcultures.org/blog/author/heatherford/>,
> August
> 1, 2025 at 10:42 am.
>
> A platform is telling researchers how to study its neutrality and defining
> what and where researchers should look to evaluate it. If it was Google or
> Facebook we might be shocked. But it’s from Wikipedia, and so this move
> will undoubtedly go unnoticed by most. On Thursday this week, the Wikimedia
> Foundation’s research team sent a note to the Wikimedia research mailing
> list asking for feedback on their “Guidance for NPOV Research on Wikipedia”
> [1]. The Wikimedia Foundation is the US-based non-profit organisation that
> hosts Wikipedia and its sister projects in the Wikimedia stable of
> websites. The move follows increased threats against the public perception
> of Wikipedia’s neutrality e.g. by Elon Musk who has accused it of bias and
> a “leftward drift”, sometimes referring to it as “Wokepedia” [2]. And
> threats to its core operating principles (e.g. that may require the WMF to
> collect ages or real names of editors) as governments around the world move
> to regulate online platforms [3].
>
> The draft guidelines advise us on how we should study Wikipedia’s
> neutrality, including where we should look. The authors write that
> “Wikipedia’s definition of neutrality and its importance are not well
> understood within the research community.” In response, they tell us
> Neutral Point of View on Wikipedia doesn’t necessarily mean “neutral
> content” but rather “neutral editing”. They also argue that editing for
> NPOV on Wikipedia “does not aim to resolve controversy but to reflect it”.
> There is only one way to reflect a controversy, apparently, and that is the
> neutral way. In this, they seem to be arguing that researchers should
> evaluate Wikipedia’s neutrality according to its own definition of
> neutrality – a definition that absolves the site, its contributors and the
> organisation that hosts it from any responsibility for the (very powerful)
> representations it produces.
>
> The guidelines tell researchers what are the “most important” variables
> that shape neutrality on Wikipedia (and there we were thinking that which
> were the most important was an open research question). What is missing
> from this list is interesting… particularly the omission of the Wikimedia
> Foundation itself. In a separate section titled “The Role of the Wikimedia
> Foundation”, we are told that the Wikimedia Foundation “does not exercise
> day-to-day editorial control” of the project. The WMF is merely “a steward
> of Wikipedia, hosting technical infrastructure and supporting community
> self-governance.” As any researcher of social organisation will tell you,
> organisations that support knowledge production *always* shape what is
> represented – even when they aren’t doing the writing themselves.
>
> From my own perspective as someone who has studied Wikipedia for 15 years
> and supported Wikipedia as an activist in the years prior to this, I’ve
> seen the myriad ways in which the Foundation influences what is represented
> on Wikipedia. To give just a few examples: the WMF determines how money
> flows to its chapters and to research, deciding which gaps are filled
> through grants and which are exposed through research. It is the only real
> body that can do demographic research on Wikipedia editors – something it
> hasn’t done for years (probably because it is worried that the overwhelming
> dominance of white men from North America and Western Europe would not have
> changed). Understanding who actually edits Wikipedia could trigger changes
> that prioritise a greater diversity of editors. The WMF decides what
> actions (if any) it will take against the Big Tech companies that use its
> data contrary to license obligations. It decides when it will lobby
> governments to encourage or oppose legislation. Recognising that the WMF
> employees don’t edit Wikipedia articles doesn’t preclude an understanding
> that it plays a role in deciding how subjects are represented and how those
> representations circulate in the wider information ecosystem.
>
> Finally, the guidelines are also prescriptive in defining what researchers’
> responsibilities are. Not surprisingly, our responsibilities are to the
> Wikipedia and Wikimedia community who “must” have research shared with them
> in order for research about Wikipedia’s neutrality to have impact. We are
> told to “Always share back with the Wikimedia research community” and are
> provided with a  list of places, events and forums where we should tell
> editors about our research. In conclusion, we’re told that we must always
> “communicate in ways that strengthen Wikipedia”.
>
> “As a rule of thumb, we recommend that when communicating about your
> research you ask yourself the question “Will this communication make
> Wikipedia weaker or stronger?” Critiques are valued but ideally are paired
> with constructive recommendations, are replicable, leave space for feedback
> from Wikimedians, and do not overstate conclusions.”
>
> There is no room for those who think perhaps that Wikipedia is too
> dominant, that it is too close to Big Tech and American interests to play
> such an important role in stewarding public knowledge for all the world.
> Nor for those whose research aims to serve the public rather than Wikipedia
> editors, those of us who choose rather to educate the public when, how and
> why Wikipedia fails to live up to its promise of neutrality and the
> neutrality we have mistakenly come to expect from it. I know that this
> request for feedback from the WMF will not raise an eyebrow in public
> discourse about the project and that will be the sign that we have put too
> much expectation in Wikipedia’s perfection, perhaps because if Wikipedia is
> found wanting, if the “last best place on the internet” [4] has failed,
> then the whole project has failed. But for me, it is not a failure that
> Wikipedia is not neutral. The failure is in the dominance of an institution
> that is so emboldened by its supposed moral superiority that it can tell us
> – those who are tasked with holding this supposedly public resource – to
> account what the limits of that accounting should be.
>
> [1]
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Guidance_for_NPOV_Research_on_Wikipedia
> [2]
>
> https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-lede/elon-musk-also-has-a-problem-with-wikipedia
> [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/06/27/the-wikipedia-test/
> <https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/06/27/the-wikipedia-test/>
> [4]
>
> https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-online-encyclopedia-best-place-internet/
>
> (legacy-tribute-revival posting of INC’s 2010 Critical Point of View
> <https://networkcultures.org/cpov/> network)
> --
> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
> # more info: https://www.nettime.org
> # contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org
>
-- 
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: https://www.nettime.org
# contact: nettime-l-owner@lists.nettime.org