ASI21577.tex 14/6/2011 16: 39 Page 1 Cultural Bias in Wikipedia Content on Famous Persons Ewa S. Callahan Department of Film, Video, and Interactive Media, School of Communications, Quinnipiac University, 275 Mt. Carmel Avenue, Hamden, CT 06518-1908. E-mail: [email protected] Susan C. Herring School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, 1320 E. 10th St., Bloomington, IN 47405-3907. E-mail: [email protected] Wikipedia advocates a strict “neutral point of view” This issue comes to the fore when one considers (NPOV) policy. However, although originally a U.S-based, that Wikipedia, although originally a U.S-based, English- English-language phenomenon, the online, user-created language phenomenon, now has versions—or “editions,” as encyclopedia now has versions in many languages. This study examines the extent to which content and perspec- they are called on Wikipedia—in many languages, with con- tives vary across cultures by comparing articles about tent and perspectives that can be expected to vary across famous persons in the Polish and English editions of cultures. With regard to coverage of persons in different Wikipedia.The results of quantitative and qualitative con- language versions, Kolbitsch and Maurer (2006) claim that tent analyses reveal systematic differences related to Wikipedia “emphasises ‘local heroes”’ and thus “distorts the different cultures, histories, and values of Poland and the United States; at the same time, a U.S./English- reality and creates an imbalance” (p. 196). However, their language advantage is evident throughout. In conclusion, evidence is anecdotal; empirical research is needed to inves- the implications of these findings for the quality and tigate the question of whether—and if so, to what extent—the objectivity of Wikipedia as a global repository of knowl- cultural biases of a country are reflected in the content of edge are discussed, and recommendations are advanced Wikipedia entries written in the language of that country. for Wikipedia end users and content developers. Although answering this question fully would require a large-scale multilingual and multinational sample, the Introduction present study contributes to this goal by presenting a compar- ative analysis of two language editions situated in distinctive The user-generated, global online encyclopedia Wikipedia cultural contexts: English and Polish. More precisely, we ask : espouses a neutral point of view (NPOV) policy, according to Are Wikipedia entries on famous persons different in English which every entry should “represent[...] fairly, proportion- and Polish, and if so, how? How neutral and balanced is ately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views” the coverage of entries in each language with regard to the on the topic covered (Wikipedia, 2011a). In this respect, disclosure and/or omission of controversial information and as Lih (2004, p4, para. 4) notes, Wikipedia “has implicitly overall tone? The results of structural and thematic content adopted the same types of operational policies facing mod- analysis of 60 entries reveal quantitative and qualitative dif- ern news operations—sticking to the facts, attributing sources ferences in entries in the different language versions related and maintaining balance.” The quality of Wikipedia content to the different histories, cultures, and values of Poland and has been examined in various studies, including through com- the United States. Only limited evidence emerges in sup- parison with print encyclopedias, which it has been claimed port of Kolbitsch and Maurer’s (2006) claim that Wikipedia to resemble in scientific accuracy (Giles, 2005) and for- entries favor local heroes; rather, a US/English language mal language and tone (Emigh & Herring, 2005). However, advantage is evident throughout. Overall, the findings sug- less research has addressed the extent to which Wikipedia gest that monolingual Polish and English readers would get coverage is fair and balanced. different amounts and kinds of information about famous people through Wikipedia, and that both versions incorpo- Received October 18, 2010; revised April 4, 2001; accepted April 25, 2001 rate cultural biases to some extent. In concluding, impli- © 2011 ASIS&T Published online in Wiley Online Library cations of these findings for the quality and objectivity of • (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.21577 Wikipedia as a global repository of knowledge are discussed, JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASI21577.tex 14/6/2011 16: 39 Page 2 and recommendations are advanced for Wikipedia end users and that this problem is created by the low number of experts and content developers. among its contributors.According to Sanger, a lack of respect for expertise, antielitism, and tolerance for vandalism are the major reasons why experts are reluctant to contribute. Other Literature Review possible reasons include lack of proper recognition for their Along with the growing popularity of Wikipedia, there has contributions and “edit wars” with nonexperts (Lipsch, 2009). been a growth in studies that have addressed issues relating to At the same time, the difficulty of assessing the authorship the site’s coverage, quality, editorial processes, and neutral- of Wikipedia articles raises questions about the composition ity. A number of early studies concentrated on the possible of the active editorial community. Automated analysis of all risks arising from the democratic nature of the wiki platform, Wikipedia activity from 2001 to 2006 shows a trend over time emphasizing the importance of quality control. Kolbitsch and according to which a core of active (“elite”) users contributes Maurer (2006) dubbed Wikipedia “the people’s encyclope- a higher proportion of edits as compared to casual users, dia,” opining that “the main argument against the Wikipedia although at a certain point this pattern levels off (Kittur, Chi, project is that with an open editing process the correctness Pendleton, Suh, & Mytkowicz, 2007). According to Ortega, of the information provided cannot be guaranteed” (p. 195). Gonzalez-Barahona, and Robles (2008), fewer than 10% of Denning, Horning, Parnas, and Weinstein (2005) identified the authors are responsible for 90% of the total number of six possible risks: lack of accuracy, unknown motives, uncer- contributions—a finding that holds across multiple linguistic tain expertise, volatility, unconfirmed or lacking sources, editions of Wikipedia. and selective coverage biased by the specific interests of the Alongside issues of accuracy and credibility is concern contributors. The imbalance in coverage resulting from the about potential bias introduced by the opinions of editors. To specific interests and knowledge of a self-selected group of minimize possible bias, adherence to the site’s NPOV (neu- contributors means that Wikipedia is more oriented toward tral point of view) policy is advised for all contributors. A current events than historical knowledge. Wikipedia article currently describes in detail how the NPOV This imbalance in coverage was empirically confirmed by policy, which was first formulated in December 2001, should Halavais and Lackaff (2008), who examined 3,000 random be understood by authors and readers (Wikipedia, 2011a). articles and concluded that Wikipedia coverage is good in Encyclopedic accounts should be presented as fact and not some sciences and popular culture, but is more limited in the opinions. However, because different viewpoints cannot be humanities, social sciences, medicine, and law. In addition, avoided, it is also important to present an editorially neutral other topics are often found in Wikipedia that traditionally point of view, which means that all majority and significant are not part of printed encyclopedias, such as colloquial minority views should be presented in a disinterested tone, expressions (terms like fuck or oggy oggy oggy) and unusual without suggesting that one of them is more correct. In this terminology (e.g., folk metal; Lih, 2004). Kolbitsch and respect, Wikipedia has implicitly adopted the norms of mod- Maurer (2006) compare Wikipedia to a set of specialized ern news organizations (Lih, 2004). Wikipedia’s guidelines encyclopedias, noting further thatWikipedia articles are often note further that even if an article is written with an emphasis much longer and contain more details than corresponding on fact rather than opinion, the selection of the facts, their articles in printed reference sources. This makes Wikipedia a organization, and their presentation can result in a biased new type of encyclopedia that is not comparable to traditional article. Thus, articles should represent all significant views encyclopedias and dictionaries. Lih (2004) also asserts that fairly and proportionately,where proportionality of views Wikipedia is qualitatively different, in that it provides more means that opinions should be included according to popular- current and more frequently updated information. Despite ity. Specifically, the guidelines state “articles should not give these differences, the language of Wikipedia articles has been minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more found to be similar to entries in print encyclopedias in its widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities structure and level of formality (Emigh & Herring, 2005). should not be included at all” (Wikipedia, 2011a, section 2.3). The issue of the accuracy of Wikipedia content