Wikipedia: An Open Encyclopedia, But Is It an Open Community?

Wikipedia: An Open Encyclopedia, But Is It an Open Community?

Examining neutrality, institutional power, informal networks, and the marginalization of African American knowledge

Wikipedia has one of the most ambitious missions of the digital age: to make the sum of human knowledge freely accessible to everyone.

When Wikipedia was established in 2001, its concept was revolutionary. Anyone with access to the internet could contribute to an encyclopedia. Knowledge would no longer be exclusively controlled by universities, publishing houses, government institutions, or traditional cultural authorities.

The idea was that people from different countries, backgrounds, and experiences could come together to document the world.

More than two decades later, Wikipedia has become one of the most influential sources of information on the internet.

But there is a question worth asking:

Is Wikipedia as open and democratic as its reputation suggests, or has it developed some of the same institutional hierarchies and inequalities found in the larger society?

Being allowed to edit an encyclopedia is not necessarily the same as having an equal opportunity to influence it.

This distinction deserves closer examination.

The Promise of Neutrality

One of Wikipedia's fundamental principles is its Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

Articles are supposed to represent significant perspectives fairly, rely on reliable published sources, and avoid presenting personal opinions as established facts.

These are important principles. Without them, an encyclopedia could become a collection of personal opinions, political arguments, and promotional material.

However, neutrality raises another question:

Who determines what constitutes reliable knowledge?

Wikipedia does not create most of the information it publishes. Its editors rely on books, newspapers, academic journals, historical records, and other published materials.

This creates an interesting problem.

What happens when the sources themselves reflect historical inequalities?

For generations, African American history was documented by institutions that frequently excluded Black perspectives. Newspapers ignored Black communities, universities restricted access to Black scholars, and historical accounts often minimized the contributions of African Americans.

If an encyclopedia relies heavily on established publications, it can inherit the limitations of those publications.

Wikipedia can follow its neutrality policies and still reproduce inequalities that exist within the larger knowledge system.

Neutrality in the presentation of information does not automatically guarantee equality in the production of knowledge.

Open Editing Does Not Necessarily Mean Equal Power

Anyone can theoretically edit Wikipedia. But becoming an experienced contributor involves learning an increasingly complicated system of policies, procedures, discussions, and community expectations.

Wikipedia has administrators, experienced editors, arbitration processes, committees, and established community practices.

These structures serve legitimate purposes. They help resolve disputes, protect articles, and maintain editorial standards.

However, any organization that develops over time also develops informal relationships and power structures.

Consider the differences between a newcomer and someone who has edited Wikipedia for fifteen years.

The experienced editor may understand the policies, know the influential participants, have established relationships, and know how to navigate contentious discussions.

The newcomer may have valuable knowledge but little understanding of the internal culture.

Both technically have the opportunity to contribute, but they do not necessarily have equal influence.

This raises several questions:

Who gets listened to when editors disagree?

Whose interpretation of policy carries the most weight?

Who determines whether a subject deserves an article?

Who has influence over community initiatives?

Who receives recognition for their contributions?

Can someone with a different cultural or academic background challenge established interpretations?

These questions are not accusations against individual editors. They are questions about institutional culture.

An organization can be open in its written policies while becoming less accessible through its informal practices.

The Development of Cliques and Informal Networks

Wikipedia is often described as an encyclopedia anyone can edit. But it is also a community of people who work together, disagree, establish relationships, and develop reputations.

Over time, informal networks naturally develop.

Some contributors become influential because of their experience, technical knowledge, administrative responsibilities, or involvement in community organizations.

There is nothing inherently wrong with experience or leadership.

The concern arises when informal relationships become barriers to participation.

In any organization, a small group of people can gradually acquire considerable influence over decisions, opportunities, and resources without necessarily holding formal leadership positions.

This is worth examining within Wikimedia.

Are there established circles of influence that make it easier for some contributors to participate in decision-making than others?

Do newcomers from underrepresented communities receive the same encouragement and consideration as people who already understand the culture?

Does disagreement with established contributors sometimes become a barrier to participation?

These are legitimate subjects for research.

We should distinguish between ordinary collaboration among experienced volunteers and exclusionary behavior. The existence of networks does not prove that discrimination is taking place.

Nevertheless, an organization committed to openness should be willing to examine how those networks operate.

The African American Participation Gap

Perhaps one of the clearest indications that Wikipedia has not achieved its promise of broad participation is the demographic makeup of its contributors.

The Wikimedia Foundation has conducted research into the demographics of its editing community.

Its 2020 research found that fewer than 1% of U.S. Wikipedia editors identified as Black or African American.

The situation has improved, but the disparity remains significant.

According to the Wikimedia Community Insights 2024 Report, approximately 3% of U.S.-based active editors identified as Black or African American, compared with approximately 14.2% of the U.S. population.

These figures are based on survey estimates rather than a complete census of editors.

Nevertheless, they reveal a substantial participation gap.

The report also identifies underrepresentation among other groups.

This is important because Wikipedia's mission is not simply to create an encyclopedia. It is to represent the sum of human knowledge.

How can that mission be fully realized when significant portions of the population are missing from the community that creates and maintains the information?

The question becomes particularly important when considering African American history, culture, science, environmental knowledge, literature, and community development.

Who Determines What Knowledge Matters?

Consider the history of African American communities.

There are countless individuals, organizations, cultural traditions, environmental practices, local businesses, community institutions, and historical events that have never received adequate attention in traditional publications.

Some of this knowledge is preserved in family collections, church archives, local newspapers, oral histories, independent publications, and community organizations.

People who belong to these communities often know where important information can be found.

They may know about a neighborhood historian, a family archive, an agricultural tradition, an overlooked musician, or an important local event.

But knowing something is historically important does not automatically make it acceptable Wikipedia content.

The information must be supported by sources that meet Wikipedia's standards.

This is where the distinction between knowledge and documentation becomes important.

A community may possess valuable knowledge that has never been adequately documented by institutions recognized as authoritative.

The result can be a continuing cycle:

Historically marginalized communities have fewer resources to document their own histories.

Their histories receive less attention from established publishers and academic institutions.

Fewer recognized sources become available for Wikipedia articles.

Wikipedia's content consequently reflects some of those historical gaps.

The Wikimedia Foundation has acknowledged this problem.

In a 2021 discussion about who tells our stories on Wikipedia, the Foundation recognized that the encyclopedia is dependent on the larger information ecosystem.

If major publications fail to cover important aspects of Black history, Wikipedia editors may have difficulty finding the sources necessary to create comprehensive articles.

This is an important admission.

The problem is not always that Wikipedia editors are unwilling to document African American history. Sometimes the problem begins much earlier, with inequalities in the production and preservation of knowledge.

However, this does not mean that the problem should be left unchallenged.

Community Organizations: Participation or Empowerment?

Over the years, Wikimedia has supported numerous initiatives intended to bring more diverse contributors into its projects.

Organizations such as AfroCROWD, Black Lunch Table, and Wiki Education have worked to address knowledge gaps and encourage participation.

These initiatives are valuable.

They introduce people to Wikipedia, provide editing instruction, organize events, and encourage communities to document subjects that might otherwise receive little attention.

But there is a larger question.

Are these initiatives simply bringing more people into an existing system, or are they helping redistribute the power to shape that system?

There is a difference between teaching someone how to edit an article and giving that person an opportunity to influence the direction of the organization.

There is also a difference between encouraging African Americans to contribute information and ensuring that African American contributors have meaningful opportunities to participate in decision-making.

The movement should consider both objectives.

Follow the Money: Who Receives Support?

Another area deserving examination is the distribution of financial resources.

The Wikimedia Foundation operates a substantial international funding system supporting projects, organizations, events, research, and community development.

Funding is important because it determines which initiatives can grow beyond volunteer activities.

A well-funded organization can hire staff, organize conferences, develop educational materials, maintain partnerships, and expand its reach.

Smaller organizations and independent contributors may have considerably fewer resources.

This raises several questions:

Which organizations receive recurring financial support?

What determines which projects receive funding?

Are grassroots organizations given the same opportunities as established organizations?

How much support is available for long-term community education?

Are independent contributors recognized for their work?

Who participates in decisions about funding priorities?

Are community-building activities valued as much as measurable editing and content-production projects?

These questions should be investigated using grant records, funding applications, organizational reports, and interviews.

It would be premature to conclude that differences in funding demonstrate racial discrimination. However, transparency about funding and institutional opportunity is essential to any movement that claims to advance knowledge equity.

Financial resources are not simply about money. They influence who has the ability to participate, develop programs, and sustain a presence within the movement.

The Experience of Independent Wikipedians

There is another group whose experiences deserve attention: independent Wikipedians.

Not everyone participates through an established organization, university, or funded project.

Some people work independently, using their own time, money, equipment, and personal research collections.

They organize editing sessions, teach others, research subjects, photograph events, create articles, and help preserve information.

Their contributions may extend far beyond the number of edits recorded on their Wikipedia accounts.

For example, an individual who spends several years teaching others how to edit Wikipedia may have an impact that is difficult to measure through article counts alone.

Someone who organizes a weekly study group may help develop a community of contributors.

Someone who photographs cultural events may provide images that become part of the historical record.

Someone who introduces young people to Wikimedia projects may influence the next generation of knowledge producers.

These activities are essential to building a sustainable knowledge movement.

Yet independent contributors may have fewer opportunities to access institutional resources and participate in organizational decision-making.

This deserves more attention.

The movement should not measure its success exclusively through the activities of established organizations or the number of articles produced.

It should also recognize the people who build the communities that make those contributions possible.

What Does It Mean to Be Open?

The word open can mean several different things.

Wikipedia is open in the sense that people can access its articles without paying a subscription.

It is open in the sense that people can edit articles, subject to its policies and restrictions.

But there are other dimensions of openness.

Is the community open to people with different educational backgrounds?

Is it open to different cultural understandings of history?

Is it open to independent researchers and community historians?

Is it open to people who challenge established practices?

Is it open to distributing influence beyond the people who have traditionally occupied positions of authority?

And is it open to recognizing that some communities have had fewer opportunities to produce the sources upon which the encyclopedia depends?

These questions take us beyond the technical definition of open editing.

They bring us to the larger issue of institutional democracy.

The Future of the Wikimedia Movement

Wikipedia remains an extraordinary resource. Its commitment to freely accessible knowledge has changed the way people learn, research, and share information.

Its policies, volunteer contributions, and international reach represent an important achievement.

But an organization should not be exempt from examination simply because its founding mission is admirable.

In fact, organizations with ambitious social missions should be especially willing to examine the differences between their stated ideals and their actual practices.

For African Americans, this discussion is particularly important.

The struggle to document our own history did not begin with Wikipedia.

For generations, African Americans have established newspapers, historical societies, libraries, museums, cultural organizations, independent publishing projects, and community archives because mainstream institutions did not adequately represent their experiences.

Wikipedia offers an opportunity to expand that work.

But participation must mean more than supplying information to an existing institution.

It should also mean having a meaningful voice in shaping the institution itself.

A Final Question

After more than two decades, Wikipedia should be asking itself some difficult questions.

Has the encyclopedia become more open while its internal community has developed new forms of hierarchy?

Has the ability to edit become more widely distributed while influence remains concentrated?

Are underrepresented communities being welcomed as equal partners, or primarily encouraged to fill existing content gaps?

And perhaps most importantly:

Can a movement genuinely claim to represent the sum of human knowledge when the people who create, preserve, and interpret that knowledge do not have equal opportunities to participate in shaping it?

The future of Wikipedia should not be measured solely by how many articles it contains or how many people have editing accounts.

It should also be measured by whether people from historically marginalized communities have a meaningful opportunity to contribute, influence decisions, receive recognition, and help determine the future of the knowledge movement.

An open encyclopedia is a tremendous achievement.

Building an equally open community is a much greater challenge.

A few important research directions

I would like to emphasize three things that could make this discussion particularly meaningful.

1. The demographic evidence has changed.

The 2024 Wikimedia Community Insights Report puts Black or African American participation among U.S. active editors at approximately 3%, compared with less than 1% in 2020. That is progress, but the gap remains substantial. �

Meta-Wiki +1

2. Wikimedia acknowledges the problem of missing knowledge.

Its own research recognizes that Wikipedia cannot adequately represent knowledge that the larger publishing and information systems have failed to document. �

Wikimedia Foundation

3. The question of governance needs more investigation.

The Wikimedia Foundation explains that editorial decisions are made by volunteers, not by the Foundation itself. That makes it particularly important to understand how influence, consensus, administrative authority, and informal relationships operate within the volunteer community. 

Who Tells My Story on Wikipedia?