A-Infos (en) France, UCL AL #353 - Antipatriarchy, Behind the Scenes of Wikipedia: Hell for Minorities (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Wikipedia is an essential pillar of access to knowledge. Its 
"neutrality," its rules, its power relations reflect on the 30 million 
people who consult it per month in France - and far beyond in the 
French-speaking world. Alternative libertaire interviewed people 
familiar with its behind-the-scenes work to talk about the oppressions 
at play there. ---- Creating an encyclopedia is a political act. Making 
it collaborative is even more so: when it was created in 2001, Wikipedia 
was seen as radical. However, the idea can appeal to a wide political 
spectrum. Sophie*, a long-time contributor to its French-language 
version, describes an initial population that was rather left-wing - 
attracted by the sharing of knowledge - alongside a slightly smaller 
population that was rather right-wing - attracted by the preservation of 
heritage. Morgann, who was there from the start, saw it mainly as "nice 
free-market advocates." The founder, Jimmy Wales, is firmly 
ultra-liberal. And it is difficult not to see his influence in the 
functioning of Wikipedia, which is based on a few founding principles 
expressed in a complex set of rules and conventions.

One of these founding principles is a certain notion of "good manners". 
We must be courteous and seek consensus. This image of a civilized 
society, which would settle its disagreements through discussion and 
good faith, clashes with the reality of political conflicts. You only 
have to go to the discussion of a controversial article to observe 
endless pages of arrogant and passive-aggressive remarks, under a veneer 
of decorum. The principle of consensus often means a war of attrition: 
the one who can devote the most time to it, and who is the least 
affected by the violence of the discussion, will have the advantage. 
Also favored are those who are experts in Wikipedia's rules, which are 
numerous and broad enough that it is always possible to brandish one 
against your opponent.

The heart of the Wikipedian community refuses to think of these 
conflicts politically. Sophie describes a depoliticized population, 
which sees itself as a besieged citadel. Wikipedia must indeed face, 
with declining human resources, constant degradations and promotions of 
companies or political candidates. But it does so in ignorance of basic 
anti-fascism. A "notorious fascist" will only be blocked if he or she 
frankly breaks the rules, as was the case in 2022 with the "WikiZédia" 
affair, and the same treatment is reserved in theory for any activist. 
In practice, the far right can remain subtle to the uninitiated, while 
minorities are accused of "disorganizing the encyclopedia" as soon as 
they point out the logic of oppression. Any mention of transphobia or 
racism in the remarks or consequences of a decision will be taken as a 
personal attack, contrary to the rules of "good manners" - an 
interpretation that some even try to make explicit in the rules.

When twelve trans people "attack" Wikipedia
As a result of these dynamics, the shift to the right of society, and 
the departure of historical left-wing contributors, the balance of power 
within the hard core is today in favor of "apolitical centrists" and 
conservatives. This is evidenced by the events of the beginning of this 
year, around the mention in articles of the deadname, the former first 
name of a trans person. After years of violent debates - with for 
example comparisons to criminals wishing to erase their past - a vote 
was pushed to settle the issue once and for all. Given the impact of 
such a decision, it was relayed in trans communities on social networks, 
which in itself was seen as an attack. Several contributors, even 
experienced ones, were blocked from the site for this "rounding up" and 
for the "harassment" that denouncing the situation constituted. This was 
followed by a vote to limit who can participate in the votes, a vote in 
preparation to know if we can degender or misgender trans people, 
attacks on the biographies of people who have publicly discussed the 
subject, etc.

Clémence*, who lived through the events - at the cost of a month of sick 
leave -, considers that a small group makes its law on Wikipedia. 
Surveillance of the bios of trans people, calls for reinforcements in 
discussions, "requests to admins" against their opponents, inversion of 
victims/aggressors... By claiming to be a bulwark against activists who 
have come to "disorganize the encyclopedia," they are sure to be 
protected by depoliticized "centrists." It is striking that a site that 
tens of millions of people rely on, and built by thousands of them, is 
governed by the inner circle of a few dozen guardians of the citadel, 
who refuse the opinion of those who have not spent hours learning the 
mysteries of the interface and the rules of the site.

A superficial neutrality
They also disclaim any influence on society: neutrality is another 
founding principle of Wikipedia. In practice, therefore, all points of 
view must be presented, and assertions must be supported by secondary 
sources - analyses and repetitions, often journalistic, of raw 
information. For the community, if "reliable" sources are increasingly 
right-wing, this would reflect society and it would therefore be natural 
for Wikipedia to slide to the right. However, this is to miss the 
editorial choices, eminently political, that are behind any presentation 
of information. The choice of sources, the structure of the articles, 
the importance given to each fact or opinion, the turns of phrase used, 
none of this can be neutral. They will necessarily reflect the point of 
view of the authors, who are mostly male (80% on Wikipedia FR!), white 
and well-off. For many of them, this lack of diversity is not even a 
problem, since every human being is supposed to be "equal". Everyone's 
life, oppression, the means in time and technical knowledge to 
contribute, all of this is not visible behind the screens.

And the fact is that Wikipedia can cause harm, even if the facts 
presented have already been in the sources. Information added to 
Wikipedia gains visibility that it did not necessarily have in its 
original article, and is doomed to remain. Particularly in a biography, 
this can lead to serious consequences. Exit the right to be forgotten: 
deadnames, far-right controversies, children's first names, all of this 
will be forever accessible in a few clicks. However, one rule of the 
encyclopedia is not to harm people. But some, disconnected from reality, 
find the "encyclopedic relevance" of the slightest bit of information 
more important.

Founded with a view to providing access to information for all and its 
control, the Wikipedia project can sometimes take on the air of a 
conservative insularity.
Faced with the impossible neutrality of editorial choices, Sophie and 
Morgann agree on the importance of situating knowledge and training the 
community in epistemology, beyond a principle of citation understood 
only on the surface. With regard to sources, if almost all the people 
interviewed agree with the current principle, the notion of reliability 
would need to be reviewed. Some knowledge, such as that on 
transidentity, comes from experiences and their sharing, and is ignored 
by the "major newspapers". Ivonne, an anti-racist activist, points out 
that African sources are not taken seriously, and that the French model 
does not apply to populations who get their information much more from 
blogs, YouTube channels or social media accounts, which are often more 
reliable and opinion-forming than traditional newspapers, especially in 
dictatorial regimes.

Remaking the real and the collective
In 2018, Ivonne founded Noircir Wikipedia, a project aimed at filling 
the gap in articles and references on black and Afro-descendant subjects 
and people, and at removing racist biases and euphemisms from the 
encyclopedia. Wikipedia "fr" is indeed supposed to cover the entire 
French-speaking world, which is mainly African. But here again, the 
structural differences in contributing are great. Just like "les sans 
pagEs", another project dedicated to women's biographies, Noircir 
Wikipedia regularly organizes workshops to contribute to the 
encyclopedia and catch up, article by article, on its shortcomings. 
Ivonne sees these initiatives as a more concrete way of making things 
happen than by getting involved in the online community, which she 
avoids as much as she can. These spaces transform individual and virtual 
action into collective dynamics, bringing mutual aid and solidarity. 
They also make the connection with activism focused on society, and 
media education - Wikipedia included.

These projects are salutary but face strong resistance. The sans pagEs 
have been the target of attacks for years, so much so that an open 
letter had to be published to support them. As for the Wikimedia 
Foundation, owner of Wikipedia, it is reluctant to act. Thus the citadel 
defends itself against those who fight to simply exist within it...

Chloé (UCL Grenoble)

* First names have been changed.

https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Coulisses-de-Wikipedia-un-enfer-pour-les-minorites
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en