Twenty years ago when I attended university, I was told by lecturers in no uncertain terms that Wikipedia should not be used for research because anyone can create and edit content. Critical thinking and well-researched essays were the only way to obtain good marks. A paragraph in an essay required a minimum of two to three different sources, a page required ten sources or more, and one had to include counterarguments and reference widely. Unfortunately, times have changed and reading widely and reviewing both sides of the debate is near-extinct, in part, thanks to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is the fifth most visited website after Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and YouTube and is the number one source for the average school and university student. The increasing use and popularity of Wikipedia has led to a drastic change in university messaging compared to twenty years ago, with professors and librarians praising the site as credible. Students are often recommended to first go and find the basic facts from Wikipedia and then use their critical thinking to obtain further knowledge from news sources and journal articles. Although students are advised not to cite Wikipedia directly, they are advised that the website is good for fact-checking and fighting misinformation. The danger in this messaging is two-fold: 1) Wikipedia is crowd-based editing and is not reliant on expert opinion, and 2) Wikipedia has been subject to accusations of left-leaning bias and selective sourcing.

In 2012, several professors from the Harvard Business School conducted research comparing Wikipedia to the once old-faithful Encyclopedia Britannica to see which source had more neutrality. The researchers found that in almost all cases, Wikipedia was more left-leaning than Britannica on topics such as immigration, civil rights, education, governments, and corporations, whereas non-controversial content maintained the neutral point of view, for example in mathematics and most science-based articles. Wikipedia itself notes its journalistic bias here stating that sources are predominately derived from liberal news sources. Moreover, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger stated in 2021 that the online encyclopedia is built entirely of ‘establishment’ views commonly found in the mainstream media and controversial topics rarely include centrist or conservative viewpoints. Sanger highlighted the Covid vaccine and the Hunter Biden scandal as examples of topics with left-leaning bias and little debate.

The danger in this, for a society relying solely on Wikipedia, is that conflicting research is not presented for a broader perspective which is crucial during major events when page views increase significantly. The first week of any major event has the most views and this wanes over time as seen below in the example on the 2023 Israel-Hamas War.

If page views wane over time, it proves the point that first glances of Wikipedia count to the average reader. Even more crucial, is that when read time is primarily the first two to three paragraphs on any page, those paragraphs need to include a variety of sources.

A relevant example in the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the Wikipedia page for the Gaza Strip. Reading the initial two paragraphs would lead the reader to think that Israel occupies Gaza since 1967, that Hamas are not a terrorist organisation, and that Israel blocks Gazan land, sea, and air space for no reason at all. To find any mention of the word terrorist (of which there are only two mentions) the reader needs to navigate through over 11,000 words down to near bottom of the page. The word terrorism is not mentioned once despite reference to Hamas control of Gaza since 2007, and sources are predominately from the United Nations which is known for its anti-Israel bias or from the post-Zionist writings of the ‘New Israeli Historians’.

Another timely example of Wikipedia distortion is the page of Ahed Tamimi. The introductory section gives three references about Ahed portraying her as a Palestinian activist, two sources from Haaretz, and one from the Guardian. Haaretz is an Israeli news source known for its left-wing and liberal stances as is the Guardian – even a search on Wikipedia itself tells you this. There is no counter stance provided about Ahed’s alleged family connection to terror. In the section Early Life there is no mention about her parents encouraging Palestinians to throw stones at Israeli soldiers and berate them. There is no mention of her unrepentant aunt, Ahlam Tamimi, one of the convicted masterminds behind the 2001 Sbarro Pizzeria suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed and wounded hundreds of Israeli civilians.

One would think that these were salient points to be included in the Early Life section so that readers can conclude whether Ahed is indeed a resistance fighter. Yet, the page is seriously lacking in context and sourcing and is a detriment to the reader. The recent vanishing of Ahed Tamimi’s Instagram account following her alleged post stating Israeli settlers should be slaughtered and referencing the Holocaust and Hitler, is nowhere to be mentioned (to date). It is not known if she deleted the Instagram account or if it was suspended. Here is the discussion on the article Talk Page on why it is not included.

The battle between editors over arguments of sources on Ahed’s page is illustrative of the dominance some editors have over others. The editor with the higher stance fails to see that Ahed Tamimi’s page is dominated by references from Al Jazaeera, Haaretz, The Guardian, and The Washington Post and the editor does not acknowledge their left-leaning bias. Rather than include this context on the page in order for the reader to make the decision, Wikipedia editors with greater stance omit it altogether. This means that Wikipedia’s policy of neutrality is severely compromised.

With growing anti-Semitism worldwide, Wikipedia has become an increasingly risky source on these topics as readers cannot exercise critical thinking with the limited information presented. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only one such area highlighting this. Currently, it is unwise to blindly trust the Wiki crowd and it should be paramount for Wikipedia editors, new and old, to note all sides of the debate especially as the world is moving to collectively-produced knowledge on the platform.

Hava Mendelle is a Political Science graduate who left politics to obtain a real career in Nursing.