
Wikipedia UnReliable Sources: Who Are These Editors and Admins Who Define “Reality” for the Rest of Us?
- By Jessica Wood --
- 23 Jan 2025 --
This article is part of a Wikipedia Religious UnReliable Sources series.
Imagine this, if you will. You’re a member of a church, charity, religious group or organization. You’re reading an article on Wikipedia and are shocked or vexed to run across something you know personally to contain misinterpretation, misinformation or blatant falsehoods about your beliefs or practices.
“Easy,” you think. “Wikipedia’s for everybody, right? I’ll just set up an editor’s account and contribute the truth to the article.”
You do that and leave a note in the talk page explaining that as a member of the faith, you know what the article stated was wrong, and so you corrected it. You even provide a link to your scripture or a manual or guidebook proving your information to be accurate.
You go back to the page. Your edit was reversed because your documentation was not “reliable.” Coming from a primary source (from texts of the religion itself) it cannot be cited as it violates the Wikipedia policy of NPOV (Neutral Point of View).
You try to reinstate your contribution to the page, discussing this edit on the talk page, according to Wikipedia’s policy. You point out that the source you cited is valid as it proves that the description you changed in the article does not align with the beliefs of adherents of the faith. You try logging in the next day, only to find your edit was not only reverted, you have also been banned! Why? Because you tried to edit “your own page”—which is against Wikipedia rules and is grounds for ejection.
You try logging in with a new name and account, only to find the next day that you are no longer able to participate in the community under any name—your IP has been banned.
Could this scenario actually happen?
Yes, Dorothy. You are in Wikipedia, not Kansas, and truth is not the issue here. Only so-called neutrality and “reliable sources” are important.
Editor and Reliable Sources Bias
Wikipedia’s version of reality is not what is “true.” Rather it is what is reported by a “reliable source.” Wikipedia defines an “independent source” as one that has “no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic and therefore is commonly expected to cover the topic from a disinterested perspective.’’ In the ideal Wikipedia paradigm, “disinterested” media would have no agenda, no bias and no prejudice.
This begs the question: is there bias in the sources Wikipedia considers to be reliable?
According to a 2022 Pew Research Center study based on surveys of nearly 12,000 working U.S.-based journalists, “A little more than half of the journalists surveyed (55%) say that every side does not always deserve equal coverage in the news. By contrast, 22% of Americans overall say the same, whereas about three-quarters (76%) say journalists should always strive to give all sides equal coverage.” Furthermore, the study found, “Overall, 57% of those who say their outlet has a right-leaning audience think the profession should strive for equal coverage, while 42% of these journalists say equal coverage is not always deserved. For journalists who say their outlet’s audience leans left, the trend is reversed, with 30% supporting equal coverage for all sides and a large majority (69%) saying it is not always deserved.”
A 2023 University of Rochester study of 1.8 million news headlines from major US news outlets from 2014 to 2022 found news stories about domestic politics and social issues are becoming increasingly polarized along ideological lines. A May 2024 study published on the Humanities and Social Sciences Communications website, based on a review of more than 8 million event records and 1.2 million news articles, found “Media bias widely exists in the articles published by news media, influencing their readers’ perceptions, and bringing prejudice or injustice to society.”
Possible Sources of Bias in Media Deemed “Reliable” by Wikipedia
In addition to the bias of a given news media’s editorial board, there is also the power of “the bottom line.” Newspapers accept advertising money from wealthy companies that expect reporting or at least editorials to aligns with their product, service or image. News sites, magazines and papers also compete for grants and endowments from nonprofits, each established to forward their own point of view. Added to this are the views and interests of majority shareholders.
In this mix of ideology and personal interests, can any sources be relied upon to communicate the “truth?” Yet these are the sources of Wikepedia content and are defined as “balanced” or “neutral” in the Wikipedia Lexicon.
In emphasis or confirmation of the inherent bias in media resources, a Gallup poll, released in October 2022 found that only 34 percent of Americans had a “great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in the mass media—a record low.
Wikipedia Editors and Admins selection, publication and boycotting of information can affect the entire culture, its activities, finances and politics
According to aNewsweek article of 29 July 2022,Wikipedia locked its page on the definition of “recession” when an edit war broke out after then-Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, no doubt intending to prevent a stock market meltdown, claimed that the US had not entered a recession. This, despite the Commerce Department announcement that the country had suffered two consecutive quarters of decreasing GDP—the very economic yardstick that, up to that point, defined a recession.
Whether in support of Yellen’s lead or not, Wikipedia ended the edit war by locking the page, allowing only “established, registered users” to make changes (i.e. key editors and Admins). When the smoke cleared, the definition had changed to accommodate the Administration’s new definition that “proved” the US had not entered a recession.
A twitter post from a financial data platform that provides tools and information for trading options, equities, and cryptocurrency, quoted the new locked Wikipedia definition as follows:
“There is no global consensus on the definition of a recession.”
Wikipedia Editors Define Reality While Remaining Anonymous
With just such insouciance, Admins and top Editors define “truth” for the rest of us by determining the sources of information they consider reliable while themselves remaining anonymous, allowing them to escape personal accountability for their actions.
If you wish to take issue with an edit or policy, you may only do so within the system. If you are banned from the inner sanctum, you have no means to communicate to them whatsoever. You cannot appeal to their good sense or decency or present your argument to them personally. You can’t find their LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook or X account to send them a private message. You are left with no way to rectify the misinformation. But this may change.
A Conservative Christian Thinktank Aims To Unmask Wikipedia Editors
A January 7, 2025, article in Forward—a Jewish independent, nonprofit online newspaper, describes a program initiated by the Heritage Foundation—a prominent Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank—to “identify and target” volunteer editors on Wikipedia who, it says, are “abusing their position” by publishing content the group believes to be antisemitic.
“In June [2024], a panel of Wikipedia editors declared the Anti-Defamation League a “generally unreliable” source of information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, limiting when the organization can be cited in Wikipedia articles,” Forward reports.
“After Wikipedia declared it an unreliable source on Israel and Zionism in June, ADL rallied more than 40 Jewish groups to oppose the site’s decision and stated that “Wikipedia is stripping the Jewish community of the right to defend itself.”
According to Forward, an appeal was directed to the Wikimedia Foundation, but the Foundation replied that it does not interfere in decisions made by Wikipedia’s volunteer editors, making the unmasking of editors a necessary step for creating an even playing field.
What the Future May Hold for Wikipedia
Can Wikipedia survive in an arena where the Editors and Admins can no longer operate anonymously? It remains to be seen. But any actions to level the Wikipedia playing field can only help.
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.