Is Wikipedia Wrong About Buddhism? Expert View of Buddhist Representation

The following article of our “Wikipedia Religious Un-Reliable Sources” series focuses on Buddhism as an example of how digital media influences the perception of world religions. If Wikipedia is to achieve its goals and remain an effective source of information, it must do so by providing a detailed investigation and an active commitment to representing diversity.

Wikipedia is presumably the largest and most accessible source of global human knowledge, and it has had an unprecedented impact on how knowledge is consumed and disseminated worldwide. Nevertheless, although it claims to be non-partisan and follows objective criteria, its lack of impartiality is starting to show through. Controversies have arisen from Wikipedia’s policies, especially regarding so-called “reliable sources,” and perhaps nowhere is this more apparent than its representation of religion. We attempt to show how these policies impact the portrayal of Buddhism, a world religion that has suffered from ideological predispositions resulting in distortions observed on the platform.

Buddhism is among the most widely observed and oldest global religions, with roots reaching back to antiquity. Buddhism also includes a vast spectrum of practices and beliefs, from the Theravada monks in the Temples of Southeast Asia to the spiritual practices of the Tibetan lamas. However, this fact is not well represented in Wikipedia, giving rise to concern about the editorial processes and the page’s neutrality.

Navigating Source Reliability on Wikipedia

The core of the conflict lies in Wikipedia’s policy on “reliable sources,” which requires all articles to be sourced from reliable, credible, and independent sources. On the surface, this policy appears to be good for preventing inaccuracy. However, this policy lacks a clear definition, and Wikipedia editors and administrators debate its implementation; there are disparities in its application, particularly regarding a religion like Buddhism (Schlütter, 2014).

In this case, the approach to using reliable sources shows significant tensions in the discussion of various traditions of Buddhism and its practices, particularly on the treatment of women or clergy misconduct. The reliability of data found on Wikipedia depends to a great extent on the editors or administrators, who can themselves be prejudiced.

Because it relies only on so-called reliable sources, it tends to emphasize the more analytical, historical, and post-modernist understanding of the religion and stint on the experience of Buddhism, which is the focus of its mystics and the more mystically oriented branches of the religion (Lusthaus, 1997). The consequence of the policy leads to neglect of the experience of Buddhism, which is only gained from its practice and is subjective and mystical, thus distorting the subject by excluding the realm of religious experience, spiritual belief and the great complexities within the practice of Buddhist traditions.

Because of this, the platform favors certain schools of Buddhism more than others, particularly schools that are well-represented in Western academicians’ research: Theravada and Zen. On the other hand, some of the more recent or more obscure forms of Buddhism, such as Tibetan Vajrayana or Japanese Nichiren, are given less attention. This results in a very limited perspective that does not capture the diverse experiences of Buddhists worldwide (Franklin, 2011). Additionally, the predominance of English-language sources creates a bias, misrepresenting its global diversity (McMahan, 2008).

Consequently, some basic principles of Buddhist belief, including rebirth, karma, and the process of liberation, are covered with a note of skepticism or only briefly introduced (Schlütter, 2014).

One prime example of the result of this policy is the page on the Dalai Lama, where controversy over the credibility of the source, including state-run Chinese media, results in heated discussions and controversy, and different factions propagating their views.

Likewise, articles on Thailand and Myanmar, both Theravada Buddhist countries, focus on social issues over time, beginning with how Buddhism imparts nationality and politics today. While some of the editors of the response argue that critical opinions are relevant and helpful for a global understanding of the problem, others tend to think that these critical opinions strip the subject of the spiritual essence of Buddhism (Sens, 2012). These examples suggest that while reliability guidelines help increase the quality of information on Wikipedia in many cases, they can also be used to spread bias in favor of particular positions at the cost of other perspectives.

The problem of bias goes even deeper when considering what Wikipedia has to say about the non-Western perspectives of Buddhism (Ostrowski, 2006). For instance, Tibetan Buddhism, which is based on ritualistic practices, is oversimplified, and the Dalai Lama page concentrates on the political aspects that he fosters and the diplomacy he engages in rather than his religious principles. It limits exposure of His Holiness’ core teachings on compassion and the training of the mind, concentrating only on his role as a spokesman for Tibetan self-rule (Lusthaus, 1997).

In the same way, Nichiren Buddhism, which centrally involves chanting Nam Myoho Renge Kyo, often faces criticism of not being spiritually transformative but merely a practical structure. Such biased representations are a disservice to practitioners and the way the public perceives these traditions.

The Secular Bias in Wikipedia’s Coverage of Buddhism

Another big problem is that the Wikipedia articles on Buddhism appear to be tainted by secularism. Due to the principle of Wikipedia being a neutral and impartial platform, it mainly focuses on informative material bearing history, academic analysis, and cultural relevance. Although such a strategy is helpful, it tends to happen to the detriment of Buddhism’s metaphysical and spiritual dimensions, which are critical to the practice of millions of people worldwide.

For example, some of the basic principles of Buddhism, like karma, rebirth, enlightenment, and so on, may be set in an emotionless and clinical context devoid of religious connotations. The importance of these ideas evolving over time will often be stressed, and it may not discuss their application in current society and Buddhist practice (Anālayo, 2020). This bias also applies to contemporary readings of Buddhism when the focus is made on the representatives of the tradition, like the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh. These prominent leaders are usually portrayed in a political light, that is, political militants rather than spiritual/religious figureheads. Such a secular approach can hide the spiritual message of their teachings as well as their importance within the Buddhist society.

Furthermore, other important Buddhist personalities whose dogmas and philosophies do not have a place on Wikipedia at all could be and are ignored by Wikipedia because the internet mainly presents the secular world. Such ignorance strengthens the notion that only certain views on Buddhism are valid, and thus, all the rest are ignored and unknown.

Influencing Cultural Perspectives

That is why the claims that, in practice, Wikipedia only gatekeeps by strictly adhering to the “reliable sources” policy and that its secular bias affects the perception of Buddhism among the population should be taken seriously. For many users, Wikipedia integrated into their browser is the first source of information and often the last. If some doctrines in Buddhism are stressed more than others, then this causes the public to have a skewed picture since they only get to know what they are fed as the whole concept of Buddhism (Ostrowski, 2006).

This skewed perspective may shape not only non-Buddhists’ views regarding Buddhism but also the younger generation of Buddhists, as most of their information is derived from the internet. If analysts fail to distinguish what is expected of them according to their religion or if they are given misleading information, the gap between the traditional form of practice and modernity could trigger the shift in religion in the new technological world.

The Need for Scrutiny and Accountability

As one of the most popular websites on the World Wide Web today, Wikipedia also controls a vast source of knowledge it distributes. Thus, the Buddhism case once again emphasizes the need to pay much attention to how the specific policies are implemented and to check whether the religious subjects are presented in a bias-free and encyclopedia-informed manner (Anālayo, 2020). To this end, there is a need for more openness and accountability for the decision-making processes within Wikipedia when it comes to such a diverse and nuanced phenomenon as religion. The platform must present a diverse opinion, excluding biases from secular or academic stands in religion.

References:

1. Franklin, J.J., 2011. The lotus and the lion: Buddhism and the British empire. Cornell University Press.
2. McMahan, D.L., 2008. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford University Press.
3. Lusthaus, D., 1997. Critical Buddhism and returning to the sources. Pruning the Bodhi Tree: The Storm over Critical Buddhism, 515.
4. Schlütter, M. (2014). Buddhism in the Digital World. The Wiley Blackwell Companion to East and Inner Asian Buddhism, 505-522.
5. Ostrowski, Ally. “Buddha browsing: American Buddhism and the internet.” Contemporary Buddhism 7, no. 1 (2006): 91-103.
6. Sen, A., 2012. Media, Hinduism & Buddhism: Mainstream media coverage of Asia’s two major religions. Observatorio (OBS*), 6(2).
7. Anālayo, B., 2020. Early Buddhist oral transmission and the problem of accurate source monitoring. Mindfulness, 11(12), pp. 2715-2724.

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.