Hinduphobia on Wikipedia: How One of the World’s Most Trusted Resources Is Struggling with Hate

This article is part of a Wikipedia Religious UnReliable Sources series.

People turn to Wikipedia for information on myriad topics, from historical events to cultural practices. It is, after all, one of the internet’s most popular resources, backed up by millions of users and thousands of volunteer editors. However, recent research has uncovered anti-Hindu bias, or Hinduphobia, in the platform, raising questions about neutrality, editorial oversight and accountability.

In a report by Rutgers University’s Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI), researchers explored how Hinduphobic rhetoric has increasingly seeped into Wikipedia entries. Specific articles related to Hinduism, Indian history and prominent Hindu figures have become battlegrounds with biased edits filled with misinformation and subtle prejudice. This trend resembles a pattern of Hinduphobia on X, 4chan and other influential social media platforms.

One key finding was that, as in other controversial and highly political topics, Wikipedia’s open editing model can backfire. It notes that articles on Hinduism or Indian culture are repeatedly edited to include negative stereotypes or misleading information, creating an inaccurate perception of Hindu practices. For instance, scholars have noted cases in which Hindu symbols are equated with far-right ideologies, even though these symbols have had benign and sacred meanings in Hindu culture for thousands of years.

Wikipedia’s failure to maintain a balanced or neutral point of view on Hinduphobia is not an isolated issue. The Rutgers report highlights that while Wikipedia policies are ostensibly intended to prevent bias, the platform’s dependence on volunteer editors makes it vulnerable to coordinated editing efforts, sometimes even driven by bots or troll farms. This issue of bias is not unique to Hinduphobia. Wikipedia has long contended that there are obstacles to a fair portrayal of various marginalized groups. However, the report underscores that, in the case of the Hindu faith, discrimination has been ignored or overlooked.

Researchers found Wikipedia’s Hinduphobia to be fueled by sources with questionable credibility, exacerbated by editors who are unfamiliar with Hinduism or Indian history failing to discern factual information from skewed perspectives. Since Wikipedia’s reliability rests on its citations, these misleading sources can create a cycle of misinformation that is difficult to break. Anti-Hindu editors can repeatedly reinsert these sources, creating an echo chamber effect that reinforces harmful narratives.

What can Wikipedia do to tackle this issue? It may consider revising its editorial policies regarding sensitive topics. This might require more stringent verification of sources for contentious subjects. This might also require getting experts on culture or religion to help ensure accuracy and balance in articles on Hinduism and other religions.

The Rutgers report proves that Wikipedia’s striving for neutrality is only as unbiased as its editors. Ensuring that Wikipedia remains an accurate and fair resource for all requires vigilance and a commitment to genuine neutrality—a goal that should be shared by editors and readers alike. To address Hinduphobia and other biased Wikipedia subjects requires oversight on these issues by experts and scholars.

A detailed research paper by OpIndia goes into how Wikipedia’s editorial practices and the financial connections of the editors influence its evident bias towards the religion.

Editorial Control and Bias

Wikipedia operates on a model where volunteer editors contribute and oversee content. The OpIndia report, however, highlights that a small group of administrators (there currently are 435 active administrators worldwide) holds significant power over content decisions. Having these individuals possess the power to ban editors, blacklist sources and determine content can suppress diversity of viewpoints, particularly those that challenge a left-leaning narrative. The report exposed many administrators getting grants from the Wikimedia Foundation, which raises questions about Wikipedia’s claim to be a free-for-all-to-edit encyclopedia.

Financial Connections and Influence

The research further examines the financial ties between the Wikimedia Foundation and various organizations. The Foundation receives substantial donations from the Open Society Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and Tides Foundation, among others. These organizations are known for their specific ideological leanings, which may influence Wikipedia’s content and editorial stance. The Wikimedia Foundation funds NGOs in India that align with its business interests despite not having a formal presence there. Such financial ties raise concerns about the impartiality of information on the platform.

Impact on Content Related to Hinduism and India

The OpIndia report underscores that the combination of concentrated editorial control and financial influences is what has led to a pronounced anti-Hindu and anti-India bias on Wikipedia. Articles on Hinduism, Indian history and prominent Hindu figures are often edited to include negative stereotypes or misleading information. Attempts to add alternative perspectives or inconvenient facts are often stonewalled by editors, resulting in a skewed representation of Hindu culture and Indian affairs.

Recommendations

That same report suggests several measures to address the bias:

• Wikipedia should become a publisher, making it directly liable for the content on its platform.
• The Wikimedia Foundation should establish a formal presence in India and adhere to the laws of the land, demanding disclosure of sources of financial support and adherence to the information technology guidelines.
• Expanding the pool of administrators and editors to include individuals with diverse perspectives can help ensure a more balanced content representation.
• The Wikimedia Foundation should disclose its financial connections and details of donors’ influence on content production.

While Wikipedia remains a valuable resource, it needs to address the biases in its content. Implementing the recommendations above will ensure Wikipedia fulfills its commitment to neutrality and serves accurate information to its global audience.

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across something in this area, we encourage you to contact us at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights and expertise are very valuable in ensuring that accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.