In the May 17, 2024 article “Wikipedia and Its Issues (Part 1),” we examined, as a quantitative analysis, trends and biases in the number of Wikipedia articles based on language, country, nationality, gender, and more. Meanwhile, regarding the content of Wikipedia articles, biases are also seen in how events are framed, and this has repeatedly been the target of criticism among users.

It is not hard to imagine that biases arise in the content of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is a system where anyone can write or edit articles, but there is an inevitable aspect in which content is influenced by the prejudices and beliefs of authors and editors. However, Wikipedia’s qualitative issues are not only about the personal views held by its contributors and editors; as described below, there have been numerous reports of cases in which governments, corporations, and other organizations have attempted to edit Wikipedia in an organized manner.

These actors have various reasons for attempting to edit Wikipedia articles in a coordinated way. For example, improving the image or reputation of states, regimes, companies, and individuals, or changing perceptions about the interpretation of certain events or historical happenings. Since Wikipedia ranks fifth in the world in website traffic, states and corporations have strong incentives to influence the information disseminated there.

This article looks, as a qualitative analysis, at the content of Wikipedia articles and the biases within them.

Wikipedia logo projected on a large screen (Photo: YoulendreeAppasamy / Wikimedia Commons［CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed］)

The Wikipedia editing process

In theory, anyone can write and edit content on Wikipedia, but there are various constraints. First, there are principles and rules for writing and editing that are jointly decided by editing users. For example, articles published on Wikipedia are principally to be written from a neutral point of view. In addition, editing articles about organizations or events in which the editor is personally involved is basically not permitted (※1).

There are also several levels of editing permissions. For instance, those in positions called administrators (administrator) and bureaucrats (bureaucrat) can roll back edits and block or unblock other users’ access rights. Administrators and bureaucrats are also granted authority related to deleting entire articles and applying “protection” to prevent edits to certain articles. These roles become particularly important when principles and rules are not followed, or when editors’ opinions clash over content and so-called “edit wars” break out as they compete with one another.

States and Wikipedia

So, which actors have influenced Wikipedia’s content? First, states. In every country, state power monitors how domestic and international public opinion perceives the state itself or the regime and its external/internal actions, and seeks to influence that perception in its own favor. To that end, through various means—diplomacy, military, public messaging, economy—they try to steer information and narratives about themselves in a desirable direction. In some cases, they control information unfavorable to themselves, “revise” facts about politics, history, and international affairs to suit their interests, or make their own judgments about the “truth” of information. From the perspective of state power, Wikipedia—extremely widely used around the world and seemingly editable anonymously by anyone—can easily become a tool for impression management, information manipulation, and influence operations.

It has been suggested that many governments may be involved in editing Wikipedia articles in ways invisible to the public, such as through anonymous accounts. There are many cases in which direct involvement by states in Wikipedia articles has been exposed. Of course, some edits involve correcting typos or information that is clearly wrong from an objective standpoint, but edits and deletions related to information unfavorable to national interests have also been observed. It is unclear whether most of these editing activities are organized by governments or carried out individually by government personnel, but there are numerous confirmed instances of edits originating from internet networks inside government facilities.

Part of the English Wikipedia editing interface (Photo: MediaWiki contributors / Wikimedia Commons［CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed］)

For example, traces confirm that Wikipedia had been edited over several years from networks belonging to the U.S. Department of Defense (the Pentagon), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Articles related to the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, and the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba—where the U.S. government implemented a torture program—were edited from networks of these U.S. government agencies. It was also confirmed that from a CIA network, articles were edited to be more critical of Iran, a U.S. adversary.

In Wikipedia articles about Kazakhstan analyzed in 2015, descriptions of political repression and torture—issues of concern in the country—were absent, and the content gave readers a positive impression of Kazakhstan; government involvement in the editing process was suspected.

In many other countries as well, edits to Wikipedia have been confirmed from networks inside government facilities. Editing histories remain of various Wikipedia articles edited through government networks in European countries such as Italy, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Russia (※2), and Ukraine, as well as Israel, Australia, and New Zealand. At international organizations, edit histories have also been confirmed from networks inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union (EU), and the United Nations (UN).

Nationalism and Wikipedia

Editing activities by non-government actors—such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and think tanks—on Wikipedia articles have also been exposed. Even when indirect government involvement is not evident, many cases have been driven by non-government actors’ nationalism.

For example, with Israel–Palestine-related articles, there have been organized edits by Israeli settler groups operating in Palestinian territories (exposed in 2010) and by an Israeli think tank (exposed in 2023). In 2008, organized editing activities by a U.S.-based pro-Israel advocacy group were exposed.

A Wikipedia editing workshop hosted by a Jewish museum in the United States (Photo: Sara Wass / Wikimedia Commons［CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed］)

“Edit wars” between opposing groups have also been observed over articles concerning state power. This was particularly notable in articles on Russia and Ukraine, and in Taiwan versus mainland China and Hong Kong versus mainland China. Edit wars have also been confirmed over articles on Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen.

There are also historically revisionist edits. For example, during World War II, in Poland and Croatia there were actions that abetted the Holocaust (the mass murder of Jews) under Nazi Germany, but on Wikipedia, entries were rewritten to downplay that involvement. Edits to English Wikipedia articles related to Poland came under scrutiny, as did edits to Croatian Wikipedia articles related to Croatia there. Edits to Japanese Wikipedia articles on Japan-related World War II history have also been criticized.

Ideology and Wikipedia

There are also ideological confrontations in which domestic forces within countries clash through Wikipedia editing. Here, a “right” versus “left” antagonism is often seen. For example, it is sometimes pointed out that English Wikipedia has a bias against “right-leaning” perspectives and sources. Larry Sanger, Wikipedia’s co-founder, is critical of the current Wikipedia on the grounds that its neutral point of view principle is not being upheld (※3). He argues that, especially on English Wikipedia concerning U.S. politics, scandals involving the Republican Party are emphasized while those involving the Democratic Party are downplayed. English Wikipedia also has a list of “reliable sources,” with specific news organizations listed. On this list, many so-called conservative outlets close to the Republican Party are designated “unreliable sources.”

It is also argued that Wikipedia—beyond the “right” versus “left” framework—tends to support the vested interests of state power, making it difficult for criticism of state power to be reflected. For example, in English Wikipedia’s list of “reliable sources,” outlets that take a critical view of wars waged by the U.S. and the U.K.—such as The Grayzone, MintPress News, and Anti-War—are banned from use or are designated as “unreliable sources.” Meanwhile, so-called “mainstream” major media outlets, even when they report disinformation from the U.S. government, are still positioned as “reliable sources” on Wikipedia.

Furthermore, there are traces that Wikipedia articles about these media outlets and about scholars who take a critical view of military actions by the U.S. and U.K. have been repeatedly edited by a particular editor account (※4). The owner of this account acknowledges deliberately making edits designed to give readers a negative impression of these outlets and scholars.

Wikipedia advocacy campaign screen (Photo: Distrito Medico Monterrey / Flickr［CC BY 2.0 Deed］)

On the other hand, differences in religion and ethnicity can also become axes of conflict on Wikipedia. For example, religious bias is frequently pointed out in India-related articles on Wikipedia. The Narendra Modi administration in India, where Hindus are the majority, has been accused of implementing discriminatory policies against Muslims. In response to such policies being critically portrayed in Wikipedia articles, editors who support Modi claim an anti-Hindu bias on Wikipedia, and edit wars among editors have erupted.

Companies, public figures, and Wikipedia

Because information published on Wikipedia can influence the reputations of companies and individuals, it is not uncommon for the parties themselves to put effort into editing Wikipedia to protect their interests. Many edits confirmed from within corporate networks involve typos and minor corrections or personal edits by employees of those companies, but many are believed to be organized activities as well.

For instance, a PR representative of BP (formerly British Petroleum), the major oil company headquartered in the U.K., was found as of 2013 to have provided about 44% of the English Wikipedia article about the company. This coincided with a period when litigation over pollution incidents involving BP was underway, and in particular, content concerning BP’s environmental protection efforts had been authored by BP affiliates. Editing activities by other oil companies have also been observed.

Additionally, edit histories have been confirmed from internal networks of a major pharmaceutical lobby group, from major financial firms such as Goldman Sachs, and from bioscience manufacturers such as Monsanto (now Bayer). Furthermore, media organizations and social networking service (SNS) platform companies have also been found to be involved in editing to mitigate the damage from internal scandals or to improve their image.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales appearing in an advertisement in China (Photo: SoniaT 360. / Flickr［CC BY 2.0 Deed］)

There are also numerous cases where, in Wikipedia articles about public figures, the individuals themselves or their associates (or accounts believed to belong to associates) engaged in editing activities. For example, on the Wikipedia article about Kamala Harris, who became the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in the U.S. in 2020, 408 edits from a single account were recorded in the three weeks before the candidate announcement. The owner of the account is unknown, but many of the edits removed information unfavorable to Harris or copied and pasted language used in the election campaign. There are also many editing activities from networks within the U.S. Congress on Wikipedia articles about lawmakers.

For billionaires as well, the content of Wikipedia articles about themselves can affect their reputations and interests. Billionaires in Russia and India, whose articles were suspected of being edited by associates, have become the focus of attention over these edits.

What lies behind content bias

Biases seen in Wikipedia’s article content have aspects that stem from Wikipedia’s mechanisms and policies. For example, the very practice on English Wikipedia of designating “reliable sources” is criticized for prioritizing sources aligned with the vested interests of Western governments and large corporations, which leads to bias. In addition, because the vast majority of Wikipedia writing and editing has been carried out by a limited number of people, it is conceivable that the personal beliefs and ideas of contributors and editors are reflected. Furthermore, if one has funds, states and companies can outsource writing and editing to bring about substantial changes to Wikipedia’s content. In other words, the current Wikipedia is a system in which the vested interests of state power and large corporations are easily protected.

There are also aspects of organizational governance that are seen as problematic. For example, Jimmy Wales, as Wikipedia’s co-founder and honorary chair, still holds special privileges in the organization’s governance and editing, and has been accused of having close ties to power, including leaders in the U.K. and Kazakhstan. In 2012, he married Kate Garvey, who worked in public relations for former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair; at the wedding, Blair’s former spokesman (Director of Communications and Strategy) also attended.

It is also pointed out that the Wikimedia Foundation has deep ties with Big Tech companies and U.S. political organizations such as the Clinton Foundation. Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation has provided funding to Tides Advocacy (Tides Advocacy), a group that supports political lobbying.

Wikimedia Foundation servers (Photo: Victorgrigas / Wikimedia Commons［CC BY-SA 3.0 Deed］)

Conclusion

The problems seen in Wikipedia cannot be separated from international, or national, power relations in the information environments and ideologies of societies, beyond Wikipedia’s rules, mechanisms, and organizational status. As Caroline Ball, an academic librarian at the University of Derby in the U.K., argues, “Information is not neutral. Libraries are not neutral. Wikipedia is not neutral. There is no such thing as a neutral repository of information. Choices are made at every stage in the information cycle.” By “choices” here she means which information about which events is deemed worthy of being recorded, and, if recorded, from what perspective it is recorded. She also argues that “these choices—whether by individuals or organizations, whether conscious or not—reflect the prejudices, imbalances of power, opinions, and cultures of those involved.”

GNV has previously highlighted the tendency of major news organizations to report in ways that align with power and wealth, and it can be said that Wikipedia articles show a similar trend. Currently, people who are alarmed by the state of Wikipedia, including co-founder Sanger, are moving to build alternative online encyclopedias to Wikipedia, such as Justapedia (initiative). Such awareness and efforts may be a step forward toward building and realizing an information environment where “trusted” sources are not concentrated in one place and the world can be viewed from multiple perspectives.

※1 For example, actions such as Company A writing or editing a Wikipedia article about itself as part of its own PR activities are not permitted. Instead, Company A can ask a third party to correct errors or make edits to the relevant article. In that case, a PR firm can be involved in the editing process on behalf of Company A, but the PR firm is required to disclose that Company A requested the edits and its relationship with Company A. Meanwhile, an editor with no conflict of interest with Company A can also make the requested edits on Company A’s behalf.

※2 An individual involved in editing the Russian-language Wikipedia copied a large portion of it to another site, where the content was then edited to align with the views of the Russian regime.

※3 After building the mechanisms of Wikipedia, Sanger left in 2002.

※4 Although this account bore a personal name, there is a suggestion that the number and frequency of edits on Wikipedia make it hard to believe it was the work of a single individual.

Writer: Virgil Hawkins

Follow @GNV_tweets