Wikipedia Religious UnReliable Sources: A New Year’s Commentary and Challenge

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

For the New Year, I call on Wikipedia users to hold the online encyclopedia responsible for its policies that prompt the denigration and marginalization of religion.

Unlike other articles in this series, I submit this one as an Op-Ed—an editorial and plea for Wikipedia to cease its skewed treatment of religion.

As it is customary for individuals and organizations to begin each year by reviewing the past and setting goals for the future, this New Year’s message is an appeal. Let those who, like me, are among the 4.4 billion people who use Wikipedia each day, demand that Wikipedia overhaul its treatment of religions and religious topics. A virtual information monopoly, it is long past time for Wikipedia to take responsibility for and cease its denigration and marginalization of religion and religious beliefs and practices.

The biased treatment of religion stems in no small part from what Wikipedia considers “reliable sources”—the key criterion and gold standard for editors and admins in determining how to present an issue.

A 2022 Cornell University study found: “News media sources … take up nearly [a] third of all citations from Wikipedia,” which has contributed to “a moderate yet systematic liberal polarization in the selection of news media sources.” Even more to the point, the study showed that “this effect is not mitigated by controlling for news media factual reliability [Emphasis added].”

What’s this? How can a media source whose factual reliability has not been ascertained be considered a reliable source?

The study continues:

“Wikipedia editors follow core policies when editing articles, in an attempt to provide a neutral point of view and reliable contents. Nevertheless, biases might still be found in Wikipedia in a variety of forms, and as such they require a never-ending effort on the part of the community. We find a moderate yet systematic liberal polarization in Wikipedia’s news media sources.”

Another 2022 study, The Global Faith & News Study, was conducted by the Radiant Foundation and a non-profit coalition of groups promoting balance and accuracy in media portrayals of religion. The study concludes: “Media coverage of faith and religion the world over is by and large poor, inconsistent and increasingly marginalised. In fact, it is difficult to get right religious coverage, especially in largely secular newsrooms—mainly because most media professionals do not think of religion as meriting much attention.”

A 2024 study by the Faith & Media Initiative further pointed out a hidden factor when classifying media as a reliable source on religion. The study included interviews with 30 journalists about their outlets’ coverage of religion.

“… the 30 journalists said that their editors almost never encourage stories in this area unless they correspond to a narrative of controversy, dissent or scandal. This runs counter to findings from the larger survey suggesting that 63% of people globally said that high-quality content on faith and religion is needed in their respective countries.”

So why is it so important that Wikipedia cease its pretense of impartiality and conduct a thorough review and revision of its policies on the coverage of religion? Just consider the importance of religion and religious groups in society. How does it serve Wikipedia’s purpose and the greater good to undermine public trust in religion by quoting biased and anti-religious sources and skewing articles on religions to conform to biased views?

No matter one’s faith or lack of it, it is undeniable that religion is a vital force in society. An infographic published on Freedom Magazine called “What would a day without religion look like?” demonstrates the myriad ways religion impacts our daily lives.

Another significant view of religion is a 2019 Pew Research Study that found “a clear link between what people see as essential to their faith and their self-reported day-to-day behavior. Simply put, those who believe that behaving in a particular way or performing certain actions are key elements of their faith are much more likely to say they actually perform those actions on a regular basis.”

Is Wikipedia concerned about creating positive change? If not, why should we support If so, it behooves the administration—key Wikipedia editors and admins—to step outside their own prejudices and take a truly constructive action for the betterment of us all.

Image credits: by Lane Hartwell. CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Foundation.

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across biased and skewed religious coverage in Wikipedia, we encourage you to submit an article or a write-up of how Wikipedia has misrepresented religion; send this to our editors at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights are very valuable for ensuring accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.