Wikipedia has usually confronted criticism for accuracy, however now the assaults have gotten political. One reporter says that is placing Wikipedia in danger.
JUANA SUMMERS, HOST:
With over 7 million English language entries, Wikipedia, the completely volunteer-edited on-line encyclopedia, has been known as the most important database of human information on the earth. It’s persistently some of the visited web sites on the earth, and in its almost 25-year historical past, the large number of matters on the location have been criticized for being crowdsourced, frivolous and inaccurate. However in his latest article for The Verge, Josh Dzieza argues that Wikipedia is likely one of the final bastions of goal, correct data to be discovered on the web. And he says that Wikipedia is below assault from political forces who need to form its content material. Josh joins us now. Welcome.
JOSH DZIEZA: Hello.
SUMMERS: So earlier than we get began, I just do need to acknowledge that NPR’s CEO Katherine Maher was beforehand the CEO of the Wikimedia Basis. Josh, your piece opens with this anecdote. It is from Inauguration Day again in January, and that’s when a outstanding Trump ally, Elon Musk, made straight-arm gestures at an inauguration occasion. And people gestures, to many observers, seemed to be a Nazi salute. And I am certain many individuals most likely bear in mind there was this large international debate over easy methods to interpret what Musk did. And that was a bit that was additionally enjoying out on Wikipedia. Are you able to simply inform us what it seemed like there?
DZIEZA: Yeah, it was fascinating. The talk on Wikipedia appears to be like so much like the talk in every single place else initially. You had individuals who believed strongly it was Nazi salute, individuals who believed that it wasn’t. It was an enormous quantity of debate. It ended up being about 7,000 phrases over a number of days to settle a pair sentences. Nevertheless it was outstanding, given what was occurring in the remainder of the media and on social media, that individuals roughly got here to a consensus about one thing they might all stay with.
SUMMERS: Now, that is, after all, only one incident, one second in time, however what does it inform us extra broadly about the kind of neighborhood that Wikipedia is?
DZIEZA: Wikipedia is ruled by course of. It is developed lots of guidelines over time, form of in response to all of the challenges of open on-line discourse. And the core ones are principally that any assertion must have a supply. It must be evaluated for its reliability. You must attempt to keep impartial, and which you could’t do your individual authentic analysis. And that, coupled with a bunch of floor guidelines of how it is best to focus on issues – that it is best to work in the direction of consensus, that it is best to keep away from private assaults, issues like that – implies that actually contentious matters form of steers in the direction of some consensus fairly than splitting aside into factions or dissolving into anarchy.
SUMMERS: Wikipedia is supported by donations. So meaning, as you notice within the piece, that there isn’t a present authorities funding to chop off. There are not any advertisers to boycott. And even so, the location, in addition to its editors which can be volunteers, have come below risk from authorities officers world wide. Are you able to give us some examples of what that has seemed like elsewhere outdoors of the US?
DZIEZA: Yeah, so on the outset of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, you had accusations from politicians and state-aligned media that the location was biased, anti-Russian, promulgating pretend information, issues like that. On the similar time, you had on-line vigilantes who have been exposing and harassing editors of Wikipedia. You had authorized motion. The state declared one editor a overseas agent. You had a number of the individuals who have been doxed be arrested. And so it was form of this multipronged assault. On the similar time, you had individuals attempting to edit it in the direction of a Russian perspective.
SUMMERS: The Trump administration has immediately challenged the legitimacy of Wikipedia. Why do you assume that’s?
DZIEZA: I believe you possibly can see it as half of a bigger assault towards impartial media, towards journalism, towards academia. Wikipedia is one in all these establishments that, , it is fairly stubbornly fact-based, and it is tremendously common and tremendously influential. I imply, it is the very first thing many individuals say, even at a time when many individuals do not belief the media. Folks typically belief Wikipedia.
SUMMERS: We have been talking with Josh Dzieza of The Verge. Thanks a lot.
DZIEZA: Thanks.
Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Go to our web site phrases of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for additional data.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts could range. Transcript textual content could also be revised to right errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org could also be edited after its authentic broadcast or publication. The authoritative document of NPR’s programming is the audio document.
