I just got to checkoff one of my academic “bucket list” accomplishments of editing a Wikipedia article, but I’m not sure that it was as satisfying an experience as I had expected. I actually went about this exercise in reverse order; namely, I dove into the fairly intuitive editing process of an article, prior to reading thru all the policies, guidelines, pillars and taking the quizzes that are part of the daunting tutorial process and before reading our class assignments for October 3, 2023. Luckily, my assigned topic involved editing a post on Rise Asset Development, a public-private initiative that provides financial support to individuals seeking self-employment despite being challenged with mental health and addictions issues – all personal interests of mine. In fear of reprisal or rejection, I took extra care in providing a thorough copyedit and checked sources (when available) to avoid tainting my work (or reputation) with any non – “neutral” text or subtle biases. This portion of the assignment was a little nerve wracking, and it took me a lot longer than I had anticipated but was rewarding overall.
It wasn’t until I completed the Wiki.edu module that I realized how onerous it is for broad public participation. Said another way, that the barriers to entry may cause limited contribution and thus promote exclusivity, in my view. Nonetheless, the platform is a great educational resource, and I am grateful to have benefited enormously from its content for close to two decades. It’s understandable that strict guidelines for entitling access to edit or add topics to Wikipedia are necessary for content integrity. However, the rigidity of the platform and the power of content administrators, have made me cognizant of the fact that this is a platform where creativity and controversy are prohibited. On the flip side, this stifling ecosystem is reassuring in that the content aims to be non- biased or “unaligned” (see below).
This brings me to the “Beyond the Hashtags” article on the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, where I decided to check Wikipedia to see if this incredibly insightful study of archived Tweets of this “public-facing digital platform1” was sourced. Here, I was dismayed to see a one-sentence factual attribution to a 92-page document, which I targeted to connect to the Wikipedia learning experience. Here’s the one liner:
Although not altogether comparable platforms, the twitter participant experience in “Beyond the Hashtags,” vastly contrasts that of Wikipedia. This realization isn’t necessary new for me, but after this assignment, I am acutely aware of the sterility of Wikipedia – especially in the topic of Black Lives Matter. Wikipedia lacks the inclusive historiography of Black Lives Matter, as I discovered from reading Possibly Impossible, where “Wikipedia itself admits that the “notability” requirement is one that reinforces the online resource’s systemic bias.” I don’t deny that Wikipedia is exceptionally informative and educational, but it isn’t a democratic platform. Not to say that the elimination of sardonic text isn’t sometimes appreciated. For instance, in “Beyond the Hashtags,” there are two very snarky biased twitter references that help prevent compromise or mutual agreement between liberals and conservatives.
The first instance, is on page 29 where the “unaligned parties”/mainstream media are maligned for not advocating for or against the movement and police violence victims.” Here the authors find fault with “’neutral’” news media for “aiding the other side by emphasizing or minimizing particular facts or interpretations thereof.” Huh? Isn’t it the role of mainstream media to deliver the news objectively?
The second is where both the left and the right arrive at the same conclusion, but along different lines of thought or ideologies, whereby “conservatives were not above incorporating partisan jabs into their condemnations of Eric Garner’s death.” Here, the right can’t leave well enough alone – they can’t be seen as coming to the same conclusion of “anti-brutality activists” and so they “attempt to claim Garner as a tax martyr because the law he violated was a state tax law,” and we know the right hates taxes PP. 61-62). At least this mutual agreement on police brutality by both sides was picked up by Twitter – there’s no reference to this on Wikipedia.
