Wikipedia’s Bias Against Islam: Uncovering the Truth About Reliable Sources

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

Wikipedia is probably the biggest online encyclopedia and one of the internet’s most popular sources of information, used by millions of people. A dynamic platform with frequently updated articles, it sees over a billion visitors each month and is intended to serve as a prominent source of factual information. One interesting aspect of the site is that older articles appear less subject to biases and provide more accurate coverage than more slanted and trivial newer articles.

Religious topics, especially those related to Islam, tend to be highly political and tend to be more skewed by ideological lenses. As can be seen in other articles in this series, the Wikipedia policy of so-called “reliable sources” discriminates against the Islamic viewpoint. For such an influential reference, which claims to be as impartial as possible and purports to present accurate information, it is particularly concerning that certain biases—as those exposed by the article on David Gerard—can insinuate themselves into the system. It can be challenging to remain apolitical in presenting religions, particularly Islam, in this global forum.

The Subjectivity of Reliable Sources in Portraying Islam

For any article relating to Islam—whether about the Quran, fiqh or key figures in Islamic history, including the Prophet Muhammad—there is a worrisome inclination to rely only on information from Western scholars, media or think tanks (H. Abbas, 2006). These sources should not be considered inherently untrustworthy but they often possess a limited viewpoint as opposed to scholars from a Muslim background. Combined with Wikipedia’s tendency to marginalize the opinions of Islamic scholars, it contributes to Wikipedia’s portrayal of Islam from a Western or even polemical slant.

For instance, articles that pertain to matters of the Islamic faith, like jihad or sharia laws, often use sources that focus on terrorism or prejudice towards women and other minorities while ignoring or downplaying the views of these subjects across more representative Muslim populations. Religion in general, and Islam in particular, have been the cause of concern and heated debate for several years now, especially after the catastrophe of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. In the study by Baker et al. (2013), the authors used a corpus of 143 million words from British articles’ content in Wikipedia between 1998 and 2009 to determine the representation of the term “Muslim.” Their research specified mentions in categories such as Ethnic/National Identity, Conflict, Culture and Religion, established that the greatest frequency of words contained in the Internet texts under consideration appeared in College word lists in the “Conflict” category. Words such as “extremist,” “fanatic” and “terrorist” were ranked as the 10th, 18th, and 23rd in the list of the words most frequently used. These show a selective vision that influences the general population and perpetuates biased perceptions while neglecting or even erasing the other elements of Islamic faith and tradition.

Bias in Action: The Impact of Ideological Narratives

The David Gerard case study indicates a broader issue within Wikipedia’s editorial structure: the effect of political bias by administrators and editors who have right or left inclinations. These choices made by Gerard to mainstream his prejudices into the public domain by choosing to whom to apply the reliable source policy is a true example of how power relations in Wikipedia warp content, particularly relating to religion. This problem becomes especially acute when covering Islam, as the political orientation of specific editors-in-chief can put the focus on negative portrayals of the religion while sidelining more nuanced or positive portrayals of it.

Indeed, Wiki administrators and editors have significant influence over this platform since they have the ability to determine “acceptable sources” and lock out others based on their viewpoints. As a result, what is produced and disseminated tends to emphasize extremism, particularly because it is often generated by people who may not have even a basic understanding of Islamic learning or, worse still, people with anti-Islamic tendencies. This form of editorial control skews Wikipedia’s depiction of Islam, as the information is filtered through Western or polemical perspectives (Bahrami et al., 2015).

In its coverage of Islamic fundamentalism or terrorism, for example, sources cited by Wikipedia articles tend to conflate Islam with violence. These sources may indeed provide credible information within the limited sphere of journalistic or counter-terrorism studies, but their frequent use in articles on more general Islamic subjects contributes to reader bias and imparts the idea that extremism is the core value of Islam rather than a peripheral phenomenon.

Awass (1996) concluded that Wikipedia and Media sources, specifically U.S. articles, tended to link Islam with fundamentalism and terrorism. Dunn (2001) studied the same trends in Australian newspapers, finding Muslims portrayed with terms such as fanatic, intolerant and misogynist 75 percent of the time. This is equally evident from the findings of Poole and Richardson (2006), who note that while reporting tends to distort, it is particularly prone to do so where Islam and Muslims are the subjects of the news.

Examining the representation of key concepts defining Islam, one can see that Wikipedia is strongly inclined to use secondary non-Muslim sources and does not pay sufficient attention to the vibrant variety of those from the Islamic world. Even though there is rich and diverse material available from Islamic scholars of different schools of thought (including Shia, Sunni and Sufi), Wikipedia articles often generalize and oversimplify the religion. This approach marginalizes Islamic voices, preventing an accurate representation and analysis of Islamic theology, law and history.

Wikipedia and Islam: The Association with Terrorism and Fundamentalism

In Wikipedia, Islamic and Islamist are most often linked to terror and fundamentalism, painting a picture of a religion of menace and intolerance.

The Connection Between Islam and Fundamentalism

The word “fundamentalism” is associated closely with descriptors such as Islamic, militant, radical and extreme. These associations indicate that although people perceive fundamentalism in the religious context as more frequently linked to both Islam and Christianity, Judaism does not appear among the top collocates of fundamentalism. Baker et al. (2013) investigated similar patterns in British newspapers and demonstrated that such words as extremist, terrorist, and fanatic tend to refer to Muslims. This pattern persists in Wikipedia, where Islamic fundamentalism is associated with conflicts, like the Shia-Sunni conflict and terrorist acts such as 9/11.

Wikipedia often associates Islamic fundamentalism with geopolitical risks. One example is: “Since 2001, the government of Indonesia has collaborated with the U.S. in fighting repression of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorist organizations.” Another example is, “During the 70s and 80s the radical Islamic terrorism was a major concern in the Arab world stemmed from Muslim Brotherhood’s militancy.”

Also, terms related to Islam are often used to represent political turbulence and crises. For instance, the Sunday Telegraph’s article on Israel’s political and military showdown underlined that Hezbollah is a Shia Muslim organization. This use indicates that religious identities are typically mobilized and thus associated with conflict as opposed to being defined in other non-conflict or factually informative roles.

Analysis of the Terms “Muslim Community” and “Muslim World”

A Critical Analysis of the definitions of the terms “Muslim Community” and “Muslim World” shows that there are changes in representation over time, showing how these terms are currently used in the context of Wikipedia and the British press.

The War on Terror saw the term “Muslim world” being utilized to describe a global vision of Muslims, while the perception following the 7/7 bombings in London focused on the “Muslim community” and British Muslims in particular. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are commonly denoted by these two terms with the addition of “the” to imply a singular entity. Surprisingly, there is not much critical discussion of these terms. However, The Times articles have questioned the existence of a “Muslim community,” and The Sun has put scare quotes around the term for reasons of political incorrectness. The use of the term itself influences public perception and strengthens already existing Muslim stereotypes.

As a result, the misrepresentation or biased portrayal of Islam can lead to dangerous consequences of Islamophobia and incorrect perceptions of Muslim societies globally. Due to reliance on English sources and the editorial choices the platform makes, it offers a view on Islam that is often not only outdated but also superseded by the more modern interpretations witnessed among practicing Muslims. This distorts the academic credibility of Wikipedia as well as the overall perception people have towards Islam and Muslims.

Conclusion:

Although globally, the positive articles represent nearly half of the total articles about the Muslim world, there is still a way for biases to creep into the presentation of Islam on Wikipedia. The representation of Muslims as culturally similar or unified being associated with conflict and terms such as the “Muslim world” perpetrates stereotyping of Muslims. Importantly, such circumstances as the prejudicial actions of Wikipedia administrators, as in the case of David Gerard, who deliberately distorts the content, increase the difficulties regarding the portrayal of Islam on the platform. To reform, Wikipedia should employ a more balanced and accurate perception and communication of Islamic practices and beliefs to eliminate the probability of reinforcing prejudiced perceptions and misconceptions.

References:

1. Baker, P.; Gabrielatos, C. and McEnery, T. 2013. Sketching Muslims: A Corpus Driven Analysis of Representations Around the Word ‘Muslim’ in the British Press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics 2013: 34/3: 255–278
2. Mohamed, E. (2016) ‘Jewish, Christian and Islamic in the English Wikipedia,’ Online-Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet, 11. https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.rel.2016.0.23630.
3. Bahrami, S., Touiserkani, M. and Momeni, M.R., 2015, October. An examination of the culture of impartiality in Wikipedia, A case study of the Islamic World representation in the English and Persian versions of the Wikipedia. In 2015 International Conference on Culture and Computing (Culture Computing) (pp. 113–118). IEEE.
4. Abbas, H., 2006. ’Islam versus the West’ and the Political Thought of AbdolKarim Soroush. The Fletcher School Online Journal, pp. 1–6.
5. Awass, O. 1996. ‘The Representation of Islam in the American Media,’ Hamdard Islamicus, 19(3): 87–102.
6. Dunn, Kevin et al. 2004. ‘Constructing Racism in Australia,’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(4): 409–430.
7. Poole, Elizabeth. 2002. Reporting Islam: Media Representations of British Muslims. I.B. Tauris Publishers: London.
8. Richardson, John E. 2004. (Mis)Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. John Benjamins Publishing Company: USA.
9. Bell, James. 2013. The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society. Pew Research Center: USA.

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.