The Signpost

News from the WMF

Who tells your story on Wikipedia

Janeen Uzzell is the Chief Operating Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation. This piece was originally published on February 22, 2021, at Wikimedia Foundation News. It is licensed CC-BY SA.

Growing up, my father was the storyteller of our family. He would use stories to encourage me, to remind me of how important it was to be proud of who I am, to teach me about our family history, and to make me laugh.

Before I knew enough to ask questions, I was soaking up the stories of my father and his brothers who were popular doo-wop recording artists, hearing him talk about how he met and married my mother, and how he and his siblings grew up in the South and moved north during the Great Migration.

This was history, but it had never been written down. Instead, it was weaved into family tales and songs, and then passed along from generation to generation. As I grew up, I learned that our family tradition of storytelling was part of our cultural legacy as Black Americans. We grew up telling stories because many of our great grandparents and great great grandparents weren’t able to or allowed to read. Our stories were our way of passing down our history, cementing our legacy, sharing knowledge and bridging our past to our present.

As I grew up, I learned that our family tradition of storytelling was part of our cultural legacy as Black Americans.

The power of storytelling hasn't changed, even if storytelling platforms have evolved in a more digitally-connected world. Numerous cultures around the world, from Native American Indians to African communities on the Continent and beyond, continue to share knowledge through oral storytelling. Stories are how we share information. And information shapes how we perceive everything around us.

The rise of open technology and mobile connectivity has made information even more accessible across the globe. This year, as Wikipedia celebrates its 20th birthday, there is no clearer example of the power of open knowledge for all than the free encyclopedia that has become one of the most visited websites in the world. For many of us, Wikipedia is our first stop when we want to learn about the world. It is often a top search result when you look for information, and it drives the responses you hear when you ask your voice assistant a question.

Wikipedia is only as powerful as the people who participate.

As I write this piece, Wikipedia has over 55 million articles in 300 languages – created by a global network of hundreds of thousands of volunteers. English Wikipedia, our first and largest language Wikipedia, recently recorded its billionth edit. Last year, as countries around the world went on lockdown in March and April, we saw week after week of record-breaking numbers of people visiting Wikipedia to learn more about COVID-19 in 188 languages. In August, Senator Kamala Harris's Wikipedia biography was viewed nearly 8.6 million times in the 48 hours after she was announced as a candidate for vice president of the United States. All of this content is driven by the work of volunteer contributors around the world, who give their time and their expertise to share knowledge with the world. Amazing.

But Wikipedia is only as powerful as the people who participate. It's not just about the knowledge recorded on Wikipedia's pages, but about who writes it. To paraphrase from my favorite musical, who tells your story matters.

When the information on Wikipedia does not represent the full diversity of our knowledge, when the contributors to Wikipedia do not reflect the world that we live in, we all miss out.

By design, we have limited demographic information about who edits Wikipedia, because we take the privacy of our readers and contributors very seriously. However, our research does show that most editors to Wikipedia come from the United States and Western Europe. And, as of 2020, our survey data indicate that fewer than 1% of Wikipedia's editor base in the U.S. identify as Black or African American. Considering these data, we can say with certainty that we are missing important perspectives from the world that Wikipedia strives to serve.

When the information on Wikipedia does not represent the full diversity of our knowledge, when the contributors to Wikipedia do not reflect the world that we live in, we all miss out.

The gaps on Wikipedia also highlight a larger issue across the information ecosystem. After all, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, powered by other reliable sources. If major media outlets aren't giving equal coverage to topics such as women in STEM, or to milestones in Black history, for example, then there will be no Wikipedia article on those topics, because there will be no citations to build from.

I believe this challenge is also an opportunity, particularly as we see increasing awareness about the disparity in diverse voices across our society. This is a chance to drive real, sustainable change.

The technology we build needs to be founded on values of participation and access for all.

We can do this by building intentional practices of openness and equity into our work. As platforms and organizations, we need to make sure that we are not upholding unequal structures of power. The technology we build needs to be founded on values of participation and access for all.

Within the Wikimedia movement, we are focused on knowledge equity – the just and equal representation of knowledge and people – as part of our work to decide the future of our movement. Knowledge equity means that we will work to address historical gaps and provide support to our communities to create a more thriving movement, one that is a better reflection of our world.

For equity to matter, it needs to be more than a declaration – it needs to be a measurement.

As the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia and 12 other free knowledge projects, we've also started adding equity measurements to our work. When our different departments report out on their OKRs – their objectives and key results, which is how we track the work we do – we are evaluating equity in our products, the experiences we're creating, the organizations we choose to partner with, and the stories we tell. For equity to matter, it needs to be more than a declaration – it needs to be a measurement.

I am passionate about changing the stories we hear, about creating a future where the stories we share are more representative of the world we live in. After all, Black history is an essential facet of our collective history. This is the promise of Wikipedia, but we're not there yet.

Black history is an essential facet of our collective history. This is the promise of Wikipedia, but we're not there yet.

I invite you all to join us, to contribute your knowledge to Wikipedia to build our global history, together. Follow us on social media all month to learn about important milestones in Black history and heroes that celebrate the Black experience. Share your own ideas using #WikiBlackHistory. Or join an edit-a-thon this month to contribute your knowledge to Wikipedia. But please don't stop there. Stay in touch: follow me on Twitter at @janeenuzzell, and let's continue to expand the content on Wikipedia. Who tells your story matters. It's time for us to tell ours.

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • Happy to hear that the author's paternal family hails from La Grange, North Carolina. I spent a lot of time there fishing this past summer. I see the point that "who tells your story matters" repeated a lot, especially in regards to Wikipedia. There's no doubt that our contributor base has resulted in the selection of the content we've covered (i.e. a preference for representing Western topics), but I'm curious if there's actually any empirical evidence if the race of the editor (since that's the salient factor here in the context of African American history) effects how a topic on Wikipedia is covered. Would the Barack Obama article (useful because as an FA it should represent our best work) look any different if it were written by 90% black Americans instead of the probable inverse? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Indy beetle: Our articles on unarmed black people who have been killed by the police typically favor the POV of the police, go to great lengths to avoid any mention of race (although this has changed somewhat in the past year), and emphasize any criminality or alleged criminality of the victim. I think that's one example of how our coverage might be different "if it were written by 90% black Americans instead of the probable inverse". Kaldari (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's an even better example. Traditional Maya medicine is still practiced by thousands of Maya people in Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize. If you travel to these places you can readily find locally published books on the subject which detail the contemporary practices. If you read our article, Maya medicine, however, you would conclude that no one has practiced Maya medicine since the 16th century and you would likely infer that the Maya people don't even exist anymore. That's a great example of how lack of editor diversity hurts how we cover topics, not just whether we cover them at all. Kaldari (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting piece but the author seems to misunderstand that editors are not supposed to bring their own individual perspectives to articles and are meant to summarize what reliable sources have to say on the subject. We are not looking for editors that wish to contribute their own knowledge and someone with these lofty credentials should understand that. For that matter, while I am happy the OP has had a good relationship with his father; his stories don't really count as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. I would hope that this doesn't signal that the WMF wishes to mandate that Wikipedia begin to accept storytellers as appropriate sources for writing articles. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 04:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • *her. My impression is that the WMF has disliked both the RS and notability policies for a while now, though fortunately they aren't able to do anything to them. --Yair rand (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the author misunderstands policy at all, but is simply making a point that Wikipedia's editor demographic shapes the depth and breadth of content that we cover. Wikipedians don't make up the content on the project, but we certainly determine (inadvertently) what is covered and in how much detail. WP:SYSTEMICBIAS is a real phenomenon, and not everything is a battle between editors and the foundation.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course we want editors to contribute their own knowledge. Do you think the people who work on articles like SKI combinator calculus and Chemically induced dimerization and Porphyrian tree have no relevant knowledge about the topic before they start reading sources? That anyone with access to the sources could write those articles? I didn't see anything weird at all about the clause contribute your knowledge to Wikipedia to build our global history but the focus of the article is more on who tells your story matters, which is indeed very directly relevant to a project where editors are summarising sources rather than writing off the top of their heads about a topic. — Bilorv (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • We want editors to contribute knowledge they have access to. That's different than an editor contributing their own knowledge. For many specialized topics it can be helpful to have a personal knowledge of the topic in question but editor's should be using their own knowledge to summarize and coalesce reliable sources into a Wikipedia article, not to directly incorporate their own knowledge into an article. The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is to make existing knowledge more accessible; not to engage in knowledge creation by being a publisher of primary sources (editors' own experiences). That being said there are many cases where marginalized communities can use their own access to knowledge to contribute to Wikipedia (I'd imagine there are a lot of RSes currently being ignored by the avg Wikipedia editor) but that needs to be distinguished from contributing their own knowledge itself which is original research. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once upon a time there was a wikimedia editor who read Janeen's article. They weren't very clever, but they knew what they liked. One of the things they liked was acronyms. They loved to know what acronyms meant. So they followed the link for OKRs, and found another wonderful page "A Foundation for Inclusion With OKRs". When I say "wonderful" this is because they found themselves wondering "What are OKRs?" So their next step was click on a link for "OKRs 101". Here they were offered 2 hours of videos, including the first one by John Doerr, a Menlo Park Venture capitalist who sadly has not quite made it into the 100 richest americans. The page did not reveal what OKR stood for, although there were a number of clues. For example they are not KPIs. Our intrepid editor knew what they were Key Performance Indicators. They had worked for a social landlord who used them to hide the atrocious quality of the service they gave their residents. For example, "If the door entry breaks, it will be fixed in 24 hours". Translated into reality this means that if the door entry is not fixed within 24 hrs the social landlord had no incentive to get it fixed, it would then be made a low priority and often was not fixed for several weeks. Our editor was left still in a state of wonder: why use three letters where two would do: BS.Leutha (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This mystery Wikimedian could always have just saved those two hours and gone to our page on the subject 😛 It's not perfect, but seems to be a mostly-sourced starter explanation...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said the mystery Wikimedian were not very clever. However, they know they aren't very clever, which is an advantage over the people promoting this rubbish who think they are clever. They could have put a link to OKR, but that would be a different story. If we reserve the term "very clever" for, say the most clever 10%, then an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" needs to cater for the vast majority who do not fit this category. Indeed, why waste time on the "very clever": their enhanced abilities means they can sort out all these issues very easily!Leutha (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is this survey that actually finally tried to quantify how many US editors were black? And no, I don't buy this line that "we value privacy" and therefore we don't want to ask editors in an anonymous survey whether they're black, gay, Muslim, Mormon, Latino, etc. That mostly comes off as saying "we value diversity, but not nearly enough to actually do anything about quantifying it." It comes off a bit like implying that we expect the underrepresentation is absolutely massive and we'd rather not have the bad press. GMGtalk 14:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So more diversity would be good, both because expert knowledge makes it easier to find good sources, and also people write about what interests them. However, it does have vague connotations of wanting a change in RS/notability rules, though I still think that if they genuinely want that, make a new project with different rules. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the title, the picture is misleading as it is not representative of the known editor demographics... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If major media outlets aren't giving equal coverage to topics such as women in STEM, or to milestones in Black history, for example, then there will be no Wikipedia article on those topics, because there will be no citations to build from." -- Uh, many of us don't use content from "media outlets". We use books & articles, often but not always printed on paper & bound into volumes. The problem I often encounter in working on topics that are not either mainstream or popular on the Internet is gaining access to those books & articles, either in print or electronic form. (And if an admittedly upper-middle-class white male in the US has problems getting ahold of these materials, I'm sure BIPOC people around the world encounter even more difficulties. Public libraries are an endangered resource.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply wanted to say thank you for the work you have done and your thoughtful comments.174.250.65.10 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

















Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-02-28/News_from_the_WMF