This article is part of a Wikipedia Religious UnReliable Sources series.
In today’s digital world, Wikipedia is still the first resource that people turn to, especially when it comes to obtaining quick information about religious issues. Today, it hosts more than six million articles in English and garners billions of visits per month, making it one of the primary sources through which knowledge is popularized.
Wikipedia presents itself as a neutral and accurate source of information, but the case study of David Gerard has revealed that even well-intentioned policies can be exploited. This manipulation, as a rule, originates from administrators and editors with certain ideological preferences or religious biases. This raises questions about the extent to which its coverage is fair and inclusive, as using the reliable sources policy can sometimes produce a biased portrayal of religious issues. This is due to social bias against certain viewpoints from non-Western origins or about non-mainstream religions, which may limit their exposure or present them more critically, depending on the availability and acceptance of sources (Haddad & Smith, 2002).
With our new series titled “Wikipedia Religious UnReliable Sources,” we plan to time-lapse the effect of Wikipedia’s reliable sources policy on the portrayal of religion and to analyze a few instances where these guidelines were exclusionary and resulted in skewed content.
The Power and Promise of Wikipedia
One of the powers of Wikipedia is that it has an open model of collaboration. The concept is simple, and anyone using the Internet can become a contributor or editor by filling in, editing, or changing information on almost any topic. However, this openness is also one of Wikipedia’s greatest weaknesses. While there are policies maintaining neutrality, the implementation of policies concerning content enforcement is hinged on paid editors and administrators who themselves have personal religious backgrounds and beliefs that they can bring out in the management of religious content.
The evaluation of claims in the FEVER dataset is correct and perfectly labeled. While working with texts, one may come across numerous challenges regarding representation, particularly in religion, as different people have different perceptions and beliefs (Thorne et al., 2018). A weakness of Wikipedia is its strategy of having a “marketplace of edits,” where sensitive topics may cause edit wars, and the public goes overboard to make the article politically neutral by deleting valuable information.
However, the policies Wikipedia has in place mean that only information sourced from reliable sources is allowed on its web pages. Consequently, in theory, it guarantees that content is accurate and free from bias. Nevertheless, it is often not clear what a “reliable source of information” means, particularly in a religious context. Various religions have their holy writings, learned people, prophets, and pundits, along with their valid recitations, and what may be credible for one system of beliefs may not be credible for another. This outcome can cause some differences in the portrayal of religious content on Wikipedia. For instance, topics such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism are among the most frequently read on Wikipedia. The portrayal of these religions, though, can significantly differ depending on which sources are being used and what choices the editors decide to make. These sources are questionable, and this has raised questions about the reliability, neutrality, and quality of religious content in Wikipedia. Even in some cases, it has been seen that the voices of minority religious groups may be removed, flagged, or omitted altogether.
There has been criticism of how Wikipedia presents Islam, particularly from sources that are either unbiased or not academically sound. For instance, sources like Jihad Watch or articles by Robert Spencer, a man considered to have an anti-Islamic outlook, can be cited in articles as far and wide as Islamic history and theology. Moreover, such work as “The Secret Doctrine” written by Helena Blavatsky is recognized as one of the most important works in the Theosophical movement and is used in religious content of Wikipedia; however, there are some critics who point out the fact that the book is full of rather fantastic concepts that are not backed by any historical and scientific research (Fritze, 2009) and (De Camp, 1983).
As the above figure indicates, some websites and content like carm.org (Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry) are not as reliable as Wikipedia sources since they are unreviewed blogs. Despite this, such sources might provide information on religious topics but can be largely subjective and, therefore, not reliable from the view of Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality.
Furthermore, one highly publicized case concerned a biographical encyclopedia entry that accused John Seigenthaler, a journalist who had never met the Kennedys, of participating in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy (although not on the subject of coverage of religion, it illustrates how bias can affect editing choices.) Furthermore, revert wars, for instance, the edit wars on global warming entries, demonstrate that it is not easy to solve controversies around politically sensitive issues. There are moments when people post opinionated rants that may not be backed by credible sources, making content reliability an issue.
The Influence of Ideological Bias
Ideological bias on Wikipedia is not necessarily transparent to its target audience, but it is evident in ideological biases in presenting religious content. This can be done through the prioritization of some sources over others, the construction of narratives, or the omission of viewpoints that diverge from the main narrative. Occasionally, this is a bias Wikipedia inadvertently presents due to the lack of sufficient sources that meet Wikipedia’s standard of reliability. However, there are also cases when bias is included on purpose by editors or administrators with certain preferences in mind.
Religious themes are one of the most striking examples of such practices, notably when certain themes are socially or politically sensitive. For instance, articles related to the role of women in religion, jihadism, or political participation of religious affiliations tend to be spaces of conflict between those advocating opposing views. In these cases, it means that the reliable sources policy can even be influenced by the editors’ left or right bias and present society with the information containing the determined slant.
Specific Cases of Bias and Agenda-Driven Editing
A prime example is the TV channels of a particular religion. Since they are presented based on the understanding and perception of the religion of its adherents, that fact makes them fertile ground for the biases of certain editors or administrators, particularly in the case of minority religions. Some of these channels, resources, and works are even marked on Wikipedia as “unreliable sources.” Anything quoted from such a source can be flagged and deleted any time it is cited, even those that have a large number of followers.
On the other hand, research conducted by Nature, an international weekly scientific journal, examined a number of entries on a single subject from Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica. The reviewers found many factual errors, omissions, or misleading statements: 162 and 123 in Wikipedia and Britannica, respectively. This is more than just arguing whether one platform is more accurate than the other; it is part of the changing face of publishing.
Interfaith issues are another potential source of bias, for instance, the factions within Islam — Sunni, Shia, Wahhabi, Salafi, Barelvi, Sufi, Deobandi or the relationships between different religions, such as Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism. Articles or content that examine the similarities or differences of these groups are especially vulnerable to bias. Prejudiced editors who identify with a certain religion or faction may post material that is more favorable to their religion while disparaging others. This can result in articles that lack a balanced perspective and do not address all the facets of the issue.
The Reliable Sources Policy: A Double-Edged Sword
Religions are fixed in history and culture, and every religion has its scriptures, theologians, and authorities who have the final say on matters of faith within that religious system. For instance, the Bible constitutes a first-grade source in Christianity, while the Quran does the same for Islam. However, these are categorized as primary sources in Wikipedia and thus not considered reliable; hence, editors may not rely on these texts. Rather, secondary sources are needed: interpretations and analyses by religious scholars.
Such reliance on secondary sources may complicate the process and lead to errors, where the sources available may lean towards a given viewpoint. For example, scholarly articles concerning religion in Western countries might be written with a focus on the secular understanding of religion or even the critical analysis of religious sources, which may not correspond to the actual beliefs of religious people. Therefore, selecting and prioritizing explicit types of resources inevitably contributes to religious views being outside the focus of interest as subspecies, which are considered non-traditional or originate from outside Western universities.
Conclusion
Despite being one of the greatest platforms for sharing and accumulating knowledge, there are numerous problems in the field of Wiki, most notably in the sphere of religion. Filtering mechanisms that are designed to exclude unreliable sources are indeed critical in the context of fake news, but they can also have the undesired effect of producing biased representations of religion. Thus, religious content is written according to the ideological inclinations of the contributors, and it impacts public perception. The exemplary situations, as with David Gerard, should make Wikipedia discuss these biases and prevent similar treatments of religious subjects. Only in this way will Wikipedia remain reliable, helping people develop a profound and unbiased perception of religion across the world.
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.
