What can fact-checkers learn from Wikipedia? We asked the boss of … – Poynter (blog)
Since its launch in 2001, Wikipedia has often been treated by news organizations like the black sheep of the information business. For years, the site has drawn criticism for its crowdsourced content, with pages being written and edited by anyone in the world.
But as trust in the media wanes and news organizations struggle to engage with readers, Wikipedia has emerged as a leader in transparency and user growth and it can offer some important lessons to journalists and fact-checkers.
Katherine Maher, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation the nonprofit organization that hosts Wikipedia gave the keynote speech at Global Fact 4 today. Maher addressed more than 200 attendees at the fact-checking conference in Madrid and explained how they can use the power of transparency and user engagement to get readers back in their corner.
Ahead of Maher's address, we spoke with her about the ways transparency, trust and engagement apply to fact-checking.
Consumers are increasingly skeptical of news organizations and nonpartisan fact-checkers. Seeing as Wikipedia has been an exercise in gaining readers trust, how do you suggest journalists and fact-checkers begin to repair that relationship with consumers?
Wikipedia started from the position that we had to earn the trust of our readers rather than assume we had transitive trust from being part of a broader institution, such as the institution of the free press. Today, Wikipedia editors still believe that we have to work to earn the trust of the public every day. Wikipedians start from the position that the information on Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible, as high-quality as possible, and as verifiable as possible and then they encourage everyone to check the citations anyway.
Wikipedians are also very comfortable with the idea that Wikipedia and its individual articles is always a work in progress. Knowledge is constantly evolving, and our understanding of the world, from science to history to current events, is always in flux. Wikipedians know this on an intrinsic level, and as an extension, know there is no way to ever be truly authoritative.
What they strive for instead is an approximation of the truth what humanity knows at any given time. Trust in this context has to be situational: comprehensive, reliable and consistent enough that people can feel comfortable using it for a general overview, but with the knowledge that for more serious research or critical topics, they should follow up and dig deeper. I think of it as "minimum viable trust."
So, humility, transparency, and a sense that were here for the process, rather than the finished product. Its an approach that acknowledges imperfection by challenging us to be better. Its an approach that is open with readers that they may know better than us, at any given moment. And it is an approach that embraces the ability for pieces of the structure to wobble without undermining the integrity of the whole.
The topic of transparency comes up often in the fact-checking community with regard to showing readers how and why certain claims are fact-checked. What can fact-checkers learn from the transparency you offer to your readers?
Wikipedia, in addition to being open to the world to edit, strives to be fully transparent. But this isnt just at the superficial level of an explainer: It is at the operational, procedural and production level. Everything from our software stack to our data sets to our content policies are out there in the open to poke and prod. Readers can review nearly every edit ever made, every version of an article, every citation, every link. They can see when changes were made, and often who made them and why.
Related Training: Poynter Fact-Checking Certificate
While this transparency is most often a tool for Wikipedia editors to keep an eye on efforts to influence content or introduce bias, it also serves as a powerful accountability mechanism. Even if only a tiny fraction of our readers are peering behind the curtain, we know that anyone is welcome to, at any time. It is also an explicit commitment to our users that they dont have to just passively consume. They can be participants in the process of creating and confirming knowledge checking citations, questioning sources and coming to their own conclusions about reliability and trust.
Since its inception, Wikipedia has experienced tremendous growth youve expanded to a number of different languages, youre adding new pages of research and so on. How can fact-checking have similar growth in the years ahead? What do fact-checkers need to be most cognizant of as they try to expand their reach and relevance?
Wikipedia grew where it filled an unfilled need. In some places, it was more convenient and comprehensive than a traditional encyclopedia. For others, it was the reduced cost and barrier to access, and for yet others, it was the first time that a comprehensive encyclopedia-like reference was available.
Id be looking for how fact-checking can situate itself not as an end, but a means. What is the value that it brings to peoples lives, in practicable ways? How does it help solve their problems and empower them to make decisions? So, finding places where the need is strong, but there are gaps thats the first thing Id look for.
Wikipedia also grew because of the simplicity and applicability of the idea. It was an easy model, clear and replicable, in which anyone could participate. Its policies of verifiability and neutrality are viable in almost any language and cultural context. How does the pursuit of unbiased information and verification propagate through participatory, replicable models? How do you lower the barrier of entry to participation and use, while ensuring the experience is largely consistent? Thats the second thing.
Wikipedians seem to be taking a more activist position on sources, with English editors banning the use of the Daily Mail as a reliable source. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, meanwhile, has launched WikiTribune, a project that, while not associated with Wikipedia, seems to suggest the online encyclopedia alone cannot serve as a repository of accurate information about the world we live in. How is Wikimedia thinking about sourcing and trust in the platform going forward?
One example of a banned source doesnt make a trend piece! In fact, that debate had been going on for years, with compelling arguments on both sides of the discussion. Wikipedia very rarely bans sources outright, instead choosing to focus on the overall characteristics of a source or author.
Sorting fact from fiction has been a significant function for Wikipedia editors since Wikipedia was first created, and the approach of the editors has been very stable over time. The policies around neutrality, verifiability and reliability have been with us for many years now and have served the encyclopedia well even in this time of concern over the prevalence of misinformation.
I expect editors will continue to keep a close eye on sourcing as we move forward. I also expect that well see a continued commitment to our definition of neutrality, whereby all "major and minor" viewpoints are represented, but represented according to the preponderance of evidence. Our editors are deeply vested in ensuring Wikipedia can be a reliable resource for all, on even the most contentious or complex topics. I have confidence theyll continue to hold themselves to their already high standards.
What can you tell us about the levels of accuracy on Wikipedia itself? Why do you think, especially in schools, there has been a prohibition on using Wikipedia and to what extent was that misguided? Additionally, Wikipedia has been accused of not being very representative in terms of gender and ethnic diversity. This too, inevitably, makes for a less "truthful" result. What are you doing to change this?
Several studies have shown that Wikipedia is as reliable if not more reliable than more traditional encyclopedias. A 2012 study commissioned by Oxford University and the Wikimedia Foundation, for example, showed that when compared with other encyclopedic entries, Wikipedia articles scored higher overall with respect to accuracy, references and overall judgment when compared with articles from more traditional encyclopedias. Wikipedia articles were also generally seen as being more up-to-date, better-referenced and at least as comprehensive and neutral. This study followed a similar 2005 study from Nature that found Wikipedia articles on science as reliable as their counterparts from Encyclopedia Britannica.
Of course, we still encourage all our readers to check the citations!
We believe that Wikipedia doesnt belong in your bibliography but that it does belong in education. When I was growing up, I wasnt allowed to use an encyclopedia as a source in my school papers. They helped provide context about a subject, but then you were expected to hit the books. At the Wikimedia Foundation, we agree: Wikipedia is a tertiary source. But it is a great place to get a general understanding, and its citations are a perfect jumping off point for further research.
And we do believe that Wikipedia can be a great teaching tool, not just a great reference! We all know that students are using it anyway. As a teacher, why not use that as an opportunity to engage students through discussions on digital literacy, media literacy, reliable sources and critical thinking? Some educators have gone even further, assigning writing or improving a Wikipedia article as homework. Its a great way to engage students directly in these issues, and their efforts live on for hundreds of millions of readers around the world. Last year, more than 14,000 students edited Wikipedia as part of a school assignment.
At the Wikimedia Foundation, we know Wikipedia has issues with diversity, bias, and representation. After all, our vision is for every single person to share in the sum of all knowledge, but were still predominantly written by people in the Global North. And even there, we have challenges: Of English Wikipedias 1.3 million biographies, only about 16 percent of those biographies are about women. Thats a significant challenge. We can't serve every single human on the planet unless we truly represent the diversity of the human experience.
Of course, the challenge isnt just Wikipedia. Because were based on secondary source material, Wikipedia is often simply a mirror held up to the worlds biases. We know that throughout history, the majority of humanity has not been deemed worthy of encyclopedic notability, including women, people of color and almost anyone from outside of Europe and North America. They also have been systematically underrepresented in media, academic literature, awards and professional recognition. We all have a lot of work to do.
The good news is that Wikipedians love nothing more than solving problems. Our volunteer communities around the world are thinking critically about these issues and have launched some incredible projects aimed at increasing the diversity of our content and editing community. From AfroCROWD which aims to improve coverage of Black and African diaspora heritage, to Wikiproject Women in Red and WikiMujeres, which aim to improve participation and representation of women on Wikipedia, theyre raising awareness and making steady progress.
See more here:
What can fact-checkers learn from Wikipedia? We asked the boss of ... - Poynter (blog)
- What your Wikipedia reading says about you: Study find different styles - The New Daily - November 14th, 2024 [November 14th, 2024]
- Going down a Wikipedia rabbit hole? Science says youre one of these three types - The Conversation - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- Studying Wikipedia browsing habits to learn how people learn - Penn Today - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- Portland mayor candidate Rene Gonzalez violated rules by using public funds on Wikipedia page, auditor finds - Oregon Public Broadcasting - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- Top 5 Editing Conflicts in Wikipedia Pages on Religion - Baptist News Global - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- Wikipedia editors form urgent task force to combat rampant issues with recent wave of content: 'The entire thing was ... [a] hoax' - Yahoo! Voices - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- Audit: Rene Gonzalez violated campaign finance law by using city funds to edit Wikipedia page - Fox 12 Oregon - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- Auditor: Gonzalez violated the law by paying to update his Wikipedia entry - Portland Tribune - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- Musk Says Wikipedia Controlled By Far-Left Activists, Urges People To Stop Donating To Them! - News24 - October 26th, 2024 [October 26th, 2024]
- Silent Hill 2 Remake Wikipedia page locked after salty fans try to rewrite its critically-acclaimed reception - Eurogamer - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- The Silent Hill 2 Remakes Wikipedia page briefly got transformed into a phantasmagorical reflection of the psyches of idiots unable to accept reality... - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Outrage as Wikipedia changes grooming gangs article to moral panic from the 'Far-Right' - GB News - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Silent Hill 2 Falls Victim to Faux Review Bombing on Wikipedia - DualShockers - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- No, you're not losing it, Silent Hill 2 Remake's Wikipedia page's review scores have been altered, and the site has had to lock it to stop people... - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Exploring (and building) the depths of Wikipedia - The Michigan Daily - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Wikipedia and Catholicism: Navigating Misinformation and Religious Bias - World Religion News - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Weird things are happening on the Silent Hill 2 remake Wikipedia page, as folks sabotage review scores for reasons - Sports Illustrated - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Silent Hill 2 Remake Wikipedia Page Locked After Fans Tried to Change Reviews - Rely on Horror - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Trolls Edit Silent Hill 2 Remake Wikipedia Page To Lower Its Review Scores - PlayStation Universe - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- The Kremlin is rewriting Wikipedia - Hindustan Times - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Wikipedia Locks Silent Hill 2 Remake Page After It's Spammed With Fake Negative Reviews - TheGamer - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Silent Hill 2 remake Wikipedia locked after getting trolled - NME - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Wikimedia Technology Summit 2024 brings together tech enthusiasts and developers to bring inclusivity to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects - Business... - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- AI's threat to Wikipedia - ABC News - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Silent Hill 2 remake page on Wikipedia blocked after fans try to rewrite critics' positive reviews - ITC - October 9th, 2024 [October 9th, 2024]
- Matt Walsh Recalls Critics Trying to Get Him Arrested Using Wikipedia - The Daily Wire - October 4th, 2024 [October 4th, 2024]
- Wikipedia and Religion: Uncovering the Dynamics of Reliable Sources and Digital Bias - Baptist News Global - October 4th, 2024 [October 4th, 2024]
- Wikipedia: Accuracy or Prejudice? Islamophobia in the Web 2.0 Era - World Religion News - October 4th, 2024 [October 4th, 2024]
- Ultrarunner Camille Herron is dumped by Lululemon after her husband edited her rivals' Wikipedia pages to boos - Daily Mail - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Ultrarunner Camille Herrons Primary Sponsor Drops Her After Wikipedia Scandal - Runner's World - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Ultrarunner Camille Herron dropped by Lululemon following Wikipedia editing controversy - Runner's World UK - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Wikipedia relies on army of volunteers as it stares down AI - Devex - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- This Ultramarathon Runner Was Dropped By A Major Sponsor Amid A Wikipedia Editing Scandal - Women's Health - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Wikipedia scandal: Heres why ultrarunner Camille Herron was dropped by Lululemon - Women's Agenda - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- Guess The Wikipedia Footballer #4: Can you name these 10 footballers that played under Carlo Ancelotti? - Planet Football - October 3rd, 2024 [October 3rd, 2024]
- ANI vs Wikipedia: The free encyclopedias impact on India and more - The Hindu - September 16th, 2024 [September 16th, 2024]
- Wikipedia and AI: Could artificial intelligence kill the online encyclopedia? - Newstalk - September 16th, 2024 [September 16th, 2024]
- Reliable Sources: How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges Into the Public Record - World Religion News - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]
- Wikipedia and the Digital Services Act: Lessons on the strength of community and the future of internet regulation - Le Taurillon - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]
- Depths Of Wikipedia: This Page Is Dedicated To The Weird Side Of Wikipedia (97 New Pics) - AOL - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]
- Wikipedia's Longest-Running Hoax Remained Online for Almost 10 Years: The Story of Jar'Edo Wens - The Journal - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]
- 40 Times People Found Such Hilarious Gems On Wikipedia, They Just Had To Share (New Pics) - Bored Panda - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]
- People only just learning hidden Wikipedia function that makes site easier to read - The Mirror - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]
- Joe Hendry Corrects Wikipedia They Dont Believe In Me - eWrestlingNews - August 31st, 2024 [August 31st, 2024]
- Should the Reliability of Wikipedia Be Questioned for the Jewish Community? - The Times of Israel - August 27th, 2024 [August 27th, 2024]
- Rene Gonzalez's office under investigation following Wikipedia spending - KOIN.com - August 27th, 2024 [August 27th, 2024]
- The Wikipedia of medicine is in Quebec, and its growing fast! - CityNews Montreal - August 27th, 2024 [August 27th, 2024]
- George Russell Takes on the Wikipedia Challenge - Autosport - August 18th, 2024 [August 18th, 2024]
- Why All Roads Of Inquiry Lead To Wikipedia : 1A - NPR - August 18th, 2024 [August 18th, 2024]
- Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Helps Close the Information Gaps on Santa Barbaras History - Santa Barbara Independent - August 18th, 2024 [August 18th, 2024]
- George Russell Takes on the Wikipedia Challenge - Mercedes-AMG PETRONAS F1 Team - August 18th, 2024 [August 18th, 2024]
- Wikipedia Deletes J.D. Vances Wartime Medals and Awards - Shore News Network - August 18th, 2024 [August 18th, 2024]
- Toyin Abraham: X users report her to Netflix, tag her as bully on Wikipedia page - Legit.ng - July 14th, 2024 [July 14th, 2024]
- From Wikipedia to The Great: 10 Medieval Studies Articles Published Last Month - Medievalists.net - June 12th, 2024 [June 12th, 2024]
- Ethereum researcher alleges Wikipedia of biased Solana coverage - Crypto Briefing - May 22nd, 2024 [May 22nd, 2024]
- Link Rot and Digital Decay on Government, News and Other Webpages - Pew Research Center - May 22nd, 2024 [May 22nd, 2024]
- El Paso librarian takes love of knowledge to Wikipedia - El Paso Inc. - May 22nd, 2024 [May 22nd, 2024]
- Assassin's Creed Shadows 'critics' have started vandalising IRL protagonist Yasuke's Wiki page - GAMINGbible - May 22nd, 2024 [May 22nd, 2024]
- People Are Vandalizing the Wikipedia Page for Assassin's Creed Shadows Protagonist Yasuke - GameRant - May 22nd, 2024 [May 22nd, 2024]
- Assassin's Creed Shadows sparks Wikipedia edit war over Yasuke - Niche Gamer - May 22nd, 2024 [May 22nd, 2024]
- Made J. Cole look like he died in the war: Drake vs Kendrick Lamar Rap Battle Gets a World War 2 Styled Wikipedia ... - FandomWire - May 7th, 2024 [May 7th, 2024]
- Mastodon Play 'Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction?' - Loudwire - March 30th, 2024 [March 30th, 2024]
- Wolff contacted Verstappen to explain Wikipedia statement - GPblog - March 30th, 2024 [March 30th, 2024]
- George Washington Masonic Memorial photo honored in Wikipedia photo competition - ALXnow - January 22nd, 2024 [January 22nd, 2024]
- In the War for Narratives Iran's Regime Takes to Wikipedia - NCRI - National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) - January 22nd, 2024 [January 22nd, 2024]
- Kayla Braxton furious over wrong Wikipedia update, shares reaction - Sportskeeda - December 23rd, 2023 [December 23rd, 2023]
- Why Wikipedia's highway editors took the exit ramp. - Slate - December 14th, 2023 [December 14th, 2023]
- Dive into the weird and wonderful Depths of Wikipedia - WBUR News - December 14th, 2023 [December 14th, 2023]
- The 25 Most Popular Wikipedia Pages of 2023 - Mentalfloss - December 14th, 2023 [December 14th, 2023]
- ChatGPT is Wikipedia's most-viewed article in 2023 - CoinGeek - December 14th, 2023 [December 14th, 2023]
- These are the most read entries on Wikipedia in 2023: atomic bombs and much more. - Softonic EN - December 14th, 2023 [December 14th, 2023]
- Wikipedias Most-Viewed Articles of 2023 Revealed - Greek Reporter - December 14th, 2023 [December 14th, 2023]
- Watching the Napoleon Movie? Don't Forget to Read His Wikipedia Page. - Slate - November 24th, 2023 [November 24th, 2023]
- Crowdsourced fact-checking fights misinformation in Taiwan ... - Cornell Chronicle - November 24th, 2023 [November 24th, 2023]
- The Sunday Read: 'Wikipedia's Moment of Truth' - The New York Times - September 11th, 2023 [September 11th, 2023]
- 'The more vibrant the society, the more actors seek to influence Wikipedia' - Ynetnews - September 11th, 2023 [September 11th, 2023]
- SOMEONE Keeps Editing Joshua Wright's Wikipedia Page To Downplay The Whole 'Sleeping With 1Ls' Thing - Above the Law - September 11th, 2023 [September 11th, 2023]
- Why Wikipedia is so imperative for public relations - PR Daily - September 11th, 2023 [September 11th, 2023]
- More Wikipedia taunts as Max Verstappen erases a Lewis Hamilton World title - Yahoo Eurosport UK - September 11th, 2023 [September 11th, 2023]
- Local Teacher Becomes First Malaysian To Win Wikimedian Award ... - The Rakyat Post - September 11th, 2023 [September 11th, 2023]