Wikipedia is an essential pillar of access to knowledge. Its
"neutrality," its rules, its power relations reflect on the 30 millionpeople who consult it per month in France - and far beyond in the
French-speaking world. Alternative libertaire interviewed people
familiar with its behind-the-scenes work to talk about the oppressions
at play there. ---- Creating an encyclopedia is a political act. Making
it collaborative is even more so: when it was created in 2001, Wikipedia
was seen as radical. However, the idea can appeal to a wide political
spectrum. Sophie*, a long-time contributor to its French-language
version, describes an initial population that was rather left-wing -
attracted by the sharing of knowledge - alongside a slightly smaller
population that was rather right-wing - attracted by the preservation of
heritage. Morgann, who was there from the start, saw it mainly as "nice
free-market advocates." The founder, Jimmy Wales, is firmly
ultra-liberal. And it is difficult not to see his influence in the
functioning of Wikipedia, which is based on a few founding principles
expressed in a complex set of rules and conventions.
One of these founding principles is a certain notion of "good manners".
We must be courteous and seek consensus. This image of a civilized
society, which would settle its disagreements through discussion and
good faith, clashes with the reality of political conflicts. You only
have to go to the discussion of a controversial article to observe
endless pages of arrogant and passive-aggressive remarks, under a veneer
of decorum. The principle of consensus often means a war of attrition:
the one who can devote the most time to it, and who is the least
affected by the violence of the discussion, will have the advantage.
Also favored are those who are experts in Wikipedia's rules, which are
numerous and broad enough that it is always possible to brandish one
against your opponent.
The heart of the Wikipedian community refuses to think of these
conflicts politically. Sophie describes a depoliticized population,
which sees itself as a besieged citadel. Wikipedia must indeed face,
with declining human resources, constant degradations and promotions of
companies or political candidates. But it does so in ignorance of basic
anti-fascism. A "notorious fascist" will only be blocked if he or she
frankly breaks the rules, as was the case in 2022 with the "WikiZédia"
affair, and the same treatment is reserved in theory for any activist.
In practice, the far right can remain subtle to the uninitiated, while
minorities are accused of "disorganizing the encyclopedia" as soon as
they point out the logic of oppression. Any mention of transphobia or
racism in the remarks or consequences of a decision will be taken as a
personal attack, contrary to the rules of "good manners" - an
interpretation that some even try to make explicit in the rules.
When twelve trans people "attack" Wikipedia
As a result of these dynamics, the shift to the right of society, and
the departure of historical left-wing contributors, the balance of power
within the hard core is today in favor of "apolitical centrists" and
conservatives. This is evidenced by the events of the beginning of this
year, around the mention in articles of the deadname, the former first
name of a trans person. After years of violent debates - with for
example comparisons to criminals wishing to erase their past - a vote
was pushed to settle the issue once and for all. Given the impact of
such a decision, it was relayed in trans communities on social networks,
which in itself was seen as an attack. Several contributors, even
experienced ones, were blocked from the site for this "rounding up" and
for the "harassment" that denouncing the situation constituted. This was
followed by a vote to limit who can participate in the votes, a vote in
preparation to know if we can degender or misgender trans people,
attacks on the biographies of people who have publicly discussed the
subject, etc.
Clémence*, who lived through the events - at the cost of a month of sick
leave -, considers that a small group makes its law on Wikipedia.
Surveillance of the bios of trans people, calls for reinforcements in
discussions, "requests to admins" against their opponents, inversion of
victims/aggressors... By claiming to be a bulwark against activists who
have come to "disorganize the encyclopedia," they are sure to be
protected by depoliticized "centrists." It is striking that a site that
tens of millions of people rely on, and built by thousands of them, is
governed by the inner circle of a few dozen guardians of the citadel,
who refuse the opinion of those who have not spent hours learning the
mysteries of the interface and the rules of the site.
A superficial neutrality
They also disclaim any influence on society: neutrality is another
founding principle of Wikipedia. In practice, therefore, all points of
view must be presented, and assertions must be supported by secondary
sources - analyses and repetitions, often journalistic, of raw
information. For the community, if "reliable" sources are increasingly
right-wing, this would reflect society and it would therefore be natural
for Wikipedia to slide to the right. However, this is to miss the
editorial choices, eminently political, that are behind any presentation
of information. The choice of sources, the structure of the articles,
the importance given to each fact or opinion, the turns of phrase used,
none of this can be neutral. They will necessarily reflect the point of
view of the authors, who are mostly male (80% on Wikipedia FR!), white
and well-off. For many of them, this lack of diversity is not even a
problem, since every human being is supposed to be "equal". Everyone's
life, oppression, the means in time and technical knowledge to
contribute, all of this is not visible behind the screens.
And the fact is that Wikipedia can cause harm, even if the facts
presented have already been in the sources. Information added to
Wikipedia gains visibility that it did not necessarily have in its
original article, and is doomed to remain. Particularly in a biography,
this can lead to serious consequences. Exit the right to be forgotten:
deadnames, far-right controversies, children's first names, all of this
will be forever accessible in a few clicks. However, one rule of the
encyclopedia is not to harm people. But some, disconnected from reality,
find the "encyclopedic relevance" of the slightest bit of information
more important.
Founded with a view to providing access to information for all and its
control, the Wikipedia project can sometimes take on the air of a
conservative insularity.
Faced with the impossible neutrality of editorial choices, Sophie and
Morgann agree on the importance of situating knowledge and training the
community in epistemology, beyond a principle of citation understood
only on the surface. With regard to sources, if almost all the people
interviewed agree with the current principle, the notion of reliability
would need to be reviewed. Some knowledge, such as that on
transidentity, comes from experiences and their sharing, and is ignored
by the "major newspapers". Ivonne, an anti-racist activist, points out
that African sources are not taken seriously, and that the French model
does not apply to populations who get their information much more from
blogs, YouTube channels or social media accounts, which are often more
reliable and opinion-forming than traditional newspapers, especially in
dictatorial regimes.
Remaking the real and the collective
In 2018, Ivonne founded Noircir Wikipedia, a project aimed at filling
the gap in articles and references on black and Afro-descendant subjects
and people, and at removing racist biases and euphemisms from the
encyclopedia. Wikipedia "fr" is indeed supposed to cover the entire
French-speaking world, which is mainly African. But here again, the
structural differences in contributing are great. Just like "les sans
pagEs", another project dedicated to women's biographies, Noircir
Wikipedia regularly organizes workshops to contribute to the
encyclopedia and catch up, article by article, on its shortcomings.
Ivonne sees these initiatives as a more concrete way of making things
happen than by getting involved in the online community, which she
avoids as much as she can. These spaces transform individual and virtual
action into collective dynamics, bringing mutual aid and solidarity.
They also make the connection with activism focused on society, and
media education - Wikipedia included.
These projects are salutary but face strong resistance. The sans pagEs
have been the target of attacks for years, so much so that an open
letter had to be published to support them. As for the Wikimedia
Foundation, owner of Wikipedia, it is reluctant to act. Thus the citadel
defends itself against those who fight to simply exist within it...
Chloé (UCL Grenoble)
* First names have been changed.
https://www.unioncommunistelibertaire.org/?Coulisses-de-Wikipedia-un-enfer-pour-les-minorites
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten