Spotted in *Le Monde* (in the «Feel Good» section –
The relative neutrality of the online encyclopedia written by Internet users owes much to the very small core of its most active contributors, dominated by men drawn to knowledge.
Back then, the dictionary was still king, and the Internet was still in its infancy democratization. On January 15, 2001, a unique encyclopedia appeared online. Created in the United States by businessman Jimmy Wales and a young philosophy graduate, Larry Sanger, it was accessible for free and written by volunteers. It contained in the early days articles on the history of the Bible, ethical naturalism, or the Backstreet Boys.
Wikipedia is receiving a cool reception. «Many people thought it was unreasonable to entrust one's writing to just anyone.», recalls Dominique Cardon, director of the Sciences Po Medialab. The co-founder of Wikipedia shared this view when he left the project in early 2003: Larry Sanger says he's tired by the «trolls» and the «anarchists» that are rampant there. He went on to found Citizendium, a collaborative encyclopedia led by experts.
Wikipedia has become the fourth most-visited website in France
Twenty years later, Citizendium is on its last legs, but Wikipedia has become the fourth most-visited website In France, it’s not far behind Google, Facebook, and YouTube. Thanks to smartphones, the encyclopedia is accessible anywhere, anytime: the Californian utopia—which allows anyone to contribute to knowledge and operates without shareholders—is still going strong.
His body of work has become almost a hundred times more abundant than that of the’Encyclopedia Universalis. According to Dominique Cardon, Wikipedia has «It has expanded the scope of knowledge, covering topics that were previously overlooked, such as Pokémon characters. Attitudes have changed dramatically. There are still pockets of resistance, but Wikipedia is now accepted even within the national education system, where it has become an educational tool.».
A Precious «Cliché»
Wikipedia stands as a bastion against the ills plaguing social media, which have been criticized for years for their tendency to group users solely by ideological affinities (the «filter bubble» effect), fostering discussions where conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific claims take root. At a time when shared spaces are becoming increasingly rare, Wikipedia is the exact opposite of a Facebook feed: everyone there reads the same article. There, the Earth is round for everyone, including American «flat-Earthers.».
Through its articles, the website now helps build a common ground on which we can reach an agreement
According to Lionel Barbe, a researcher specializing in the collaborative web, «Wikipedia is a go-to resource for interpreting the alternative versions of reality that are promoted in the far corners of the web.». Through its articles, the website now helps to establish a common ground on which we can reach an agreement. «It's a starting point for learning", says Judge Dominique Cardon, »Even though it rarely features insights at the cutting edge of current knowledge, or groundbreaking, speculative, or innovative work, in times of uncertainty about what is factual, it is a valuable reference source—a foundation we need to build a community."
Wikipedia's secret to success can be summed up in one word: «neutrality.» According to its founder, Jimmy Wales, who Le Monde was able to ask questions on Monday, January 11, during a press conference, «Every human being has their biases, [but here] »We strive to be as neutral as possible. The spirit of Wikipedia is collaborative and thoughtful.".
Principles that have not hasn't changed since 2001 : Very often, consensus on the final version of an article is reached only after lengthy discussions among its contributors, who can number in the hundreds for a single article. These contributors must follow a set of rules, the most fundamental of which is the «cult of the source»: all information must come from a reliable and documented source, and Wikipedia defines in detail what that means.
Defense of Neutrality
Lionel Barbe notes that «Wikipedia is no longer in a phase of rapid expansion: the number of major articles yet to be written has decreased significantly. The encyclopedia is now in a phase of consolidation: it devotes as much energy to protecting itself as it does to building itself up.».
On Wikipedia, anyone can delete anyone else’s text and replace it with anything. Over the past twenty years, the encyclopedia has had to learn how to thwart the actions of trolls and less-than-neutral contributors, as explained by Anne Clin, a Canadian Wikipedia contributor who helped monitor posts during the recent U.S. election.
«This is our fifth election; we’re starting to figure out how it works. We’ve put protective locks on certain articles, and we’ve run AI-powered bots to remove certain malicious edits. We’ve been closely monitoring social media to get a sense of which topics we need to keep a closer eye on.», she explains to the World.
«We've seen biased contributors gain control over certain topics,» explains Lionel Barbe
On less polarizing issues, the danger can also come from within. According to Lionel Barbe, «We've seen biased contributors gain control over certain topics. Fortunately, sooner or later, these bubbles of misinformation always end up bursting. On Wikipedia, you can't hide redacted topics for very long.».
The greatest danger, in terms of moderation, comes from the outskirts: the least-read articles there are less closely monitored by the community.«Studies show that these papers tend to be less reliable", notes Dominique Cardon. »If they are written by a single person, the risk of errors and bias is greater."
There seems to be a lot of this content. According to Wikipedia, only 0.08 % of the articles in the French encyclopedia have received the badge «high-quality article», which ensures that all community rules are followed. But Lionel Barbe remains convinced that biases are rare. «Virtually all new articles are reviewed by at least one “Wikipedian.” And every newcomer is monitored by the community, especially if they don’t create a user account or a user page. I do, however, see a growing danger: certain extremist groups have learned the tactics that allow them to influence Wikipedia. It has become a priority for them.»
The polar opposite of social media
Does the Wikipedia community—which has become an expert in moderation—have lessons to share with social media platforms, which are struggling to define and enforce their rules? The experts interviewed aren’t convinced: the similarities between the encyclopedia and Facebook are tenuous, even though both are user-generated platforms.
«I have to make compromises and negotiate. It's the complete opposite of Facebook,» says Nicolas Jullien
According to Nicolas Jullien, a professor at the École des Mines de Nantes, «Facebook lets you post as many times as you want on a given topic. On Wikipedia, there’s only one article on World War II. If I want to contribute to it, I have to accept that other people will do so too, and that they’ll evaluate my contributions. I have to make compromises and negotiate. It’s the exact opposite of Facebook. One is selective; the other isn’t at all.».
Lionel Barbe agrees: «Nothing is deleted on Wikipedia, including debates among contributors. Social media, on the other hand, is ephemeral by nature; it leaves very few traces.» The researcher also notes that Wikipedia’s «netiquette»—its code of conduct—, «encourages us to focus on content rather than on individuals. This is the exact opposite of social media, which encourages people to overrepresent themselves». But above all, Wikipedia is much less democratic than Twitter or Facebook. The social network may have a huge readership—more than 32 million unique visitors per month in France — it is run by just 20,000 active contributors, who update at least one post per month.
Educated white men
This small group is united by a strong sense of camaraderie, which comes through in the remarks of Wikipedia's founder: «When you explore the Internet, you'll see some awful people out there. I'm impressed that we have such a wonderful group of people.», ", says Jimmy Wales.
«“Wikipedians” are known for holding radical views,» notes Lionel Barbe
Lionel Barbe sketches a profile of Wikipedians: «Research suggests that white, intellectual, center-left profiles are predominant. But Wikipedians are not an entirely homogeneous group; some are known to hold radical views, particularly right-wing nationalist ones.»
The majority of French contributors have at least a 4-year college degree, according to a study by the Marsouin Research Group, and a strong interest in learning. «Knowledge is highly valued within their home community", explains Dominique Cardon. »Librarians, researchers, and information specialists are overrepresented. Wikipedians enjoy discussions in which they may sometimes be right and sometimes wrong. One could say that they are driven by a passion for discussion."
In addition, 87 % are men, according to A study by Marsouinsupervised by Nicolas Jullien, who states in the World that «Wikipedia is lacking in certain areas, such as biographies of famous women.».
A fairly close-knit group
Is Wikipedia a bubble of white men passionate about knowledge? «You could look at it that way», says Lionel Barbe, for whom «True democratization comes more from social media.». But despite this relative homogeneity, this bubble is also sometimes the scene of violent battles. «Wikipedia is unable to stabilize articles on topics such as allopathic medicine or Palestine.», notes Dominique Cardon. Nicolas Jullien points out, however, that’«Over time, Wikipedia encourages its contributors to become more politically moderate so that the views they express will be accepted.».
In 2021, the encyclopedia partially closed its doors to new contributors
In 2001, the The New York Times noted that every newcomer was greeted with a banner proclaiming «You can edit this page right now!». In 2021, according to Lionel Barbe, the encyclopedia partially closed its doors to new contributors. «It has become quite difficult to post on Wikipedia about key topics without having your contribution deleted within an hour. The rules for contributing have become very complex, and newcomers are sometimes met with a harsh reception from experienced Wikipedians.»
Among those who take the risk, «Many don't try again», confirms Dominique Cardon. To gain acceptance, it’s best to proceed in a structured and thoughtful manner. Wikipedia is a utopia, to be sure, but a project that can be improved. Its co-founder, Jimmy Wales, is well aware of this: «We were never as bad as the press initially claimed. But we're nowhere near as good as people say we are today!»
