What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
A recent series of tweets from the official Wikipedia Twitter account has ignited a discussion about potential biases in coverage of U.S. politics, as well as global narratives around major issues, including the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
NEW DELHI: A recent series of tweets from the official Wikipedia Twitter account has ignited a discussion about potential biases in coverage of U.S. politics, as well as global narratives around major issues, including the upcoming U.S. presidential election. The tweets questioned former President Donald Trump’s stance on handling figures within the so-called “deep state” and whether individuals in his previous administration, such as Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, would have a place in a potential future administration. These posts bring attention to the influence Wikipedia has in shaping public opinion worldwide through its powerful role as a widely-used information source.
Critics argue that Wikipedia’s purported neutrality as a platform is compromised by an inner circle of administrators and editors who allegedly exercise extensive control over the content. A recent report has underscored these claims, asserting that Wikipedia’s content is curated by a small, tightly-knit group of administrators with significant editorial powers. According to this analysis, only around 435 administrators globally have control over Wikipedia’s content, with just 10 active members on the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), who reportedly hold sway over disputes, banning users, locking pages, and setting the editorial direction.
ALSO READ: Birmingham retired educator backs Trump, highlights key issues in U.S. Presidential Elections
Further complicating the issue is the relationship between Wikipedia’s parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, and major corporations, including Google. Reports indicate that Google has provided millions in grants to Wikimedia, a partnership that bolsters the visibility of Wikipedia’s content through Google’s search engine, giving it an outsized role in shaping narratives. Locked Wikipedia pages, often featuring contentious topics or public figures, become the default source of information on these subjects due to their placement in Google’s knowledge panels. Efforts to correct or update these narratives are allegedly suppressed, with editors risking bans for making changes that contradict the prevailing editorial stance.
For India, this influence has significant implications. The dossier points to Wikimedia Foundation funding left-leaning entities within the country, many of which have reportedly supported anti-India or anti-Hindu narratives. The Tides Foundation, a major Wikimedia donor, has also been linked to entities supporting separatist or Islamist agendas. Organizations in India receiving Wikimedia support allegedly promote controversial stances on events such as the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the 2002 Godhra riots. Given that Wikimedia has no formal presence in India, it operates without accountability to Indian law, a situation critics argue allows it to wield unchecked influence on critical issues.
ALSO READ: Retired firefighter shares concerns on Election eve in Birmingham
The dossier recommends that the Indian government formally classify Wikipedia as a publisher rather than an intermediary, mandating it adhere to content standards and transparency requirements. There are also calls for financial scrutiny, given Wikimedia’s substantial investment in Indian narratives, along with potential tools to flag Wikipedia bias within Indian browsers. As Wikipedia’s influence on global information intensifies, the question of transparency in its governance and content practices continues to raise concerns on a global scale.
