Image credit: Albrecht Dürer, Adam and Eve, 1504 [CC0]
Wikipedia started my love affair with free knowledge and open education. Like any relationship, it can be complicated. Over the years, I felt hurt, inspired, embarrassed, hopeful, and unsafe. First, in 2001, I found a new way to discover and consume information. In 2008, I received harassment on-wiki for the first time. In 2009, my graduate degree sat in limbo as the dean and I disagreed about open education. On stage in 2017, while presenting at an academic conference of thousands, the audience erupted in giggles and guffaws. I didn’t tell a joke. I simply said, “I edit Wikipedia.” These years of turbulence fed doubts I held about Wikipedia, causing me to examine the barriers and to reflect on the hopeful possibilities.
Initially, I knew nothing about the inequities in the world surrounding education.1 I grew up in a privileged part of the United States. My school received sufficient funding, provided special programs for academically gifted students, and ultimately quenched every student’s thirst for knowledge. I only knew my lived experience. Thankfully, that changed in 2001 when I became acquainted with Wikipedia. I learned what free knowledge means. I admit I exclusively consumed content and contributed nothing in return. That changed in 2016 when Wikipedia helped me when I needed it most. It gave me a purpose when I felt I had none. Quickly, I realized how much Wikipedia needed me too.
The complexities of my relationship with Wikipedia are not insignificant. I am comforted working together with my peers to improve access to knowledge. Yet, I loathe the way Wikipedia reflects the worst in society. For example, female novelists were demoted from ‘American Novelists’ to a sub-category, ‘American Women Novelists’, to conserve space in the main category.2 The people moving women from one category to the other likely were not twirling their evil mustaches contemplating the change nor were they maniacally laughing while they made the move. They thought they were helping to solve a problem but didn’t think through to the resulting marginalization felt by their actions, or even what thought made them move the women and not the men. This example illuminates how the tricky parts of society get their fuel from our biases, and how they affect Wikipedia in often unconscious ways.
Bias subtly constructs barricades creating an unwelcoming environment for people and content on Wikipedia. People inherit bias through exposure to media and the beliefs of family and friends. It grinds the lens through which people view the world and guides their actions. Biases impose themselves on societal structures, practices, and principles. Bias pries into collaborative interactions preventing one from viewing an issue openly and responding with curiosity. Those same biases thrive in Wikipedia’s content, community, and practices. Issues regularly occur in content, when contributors remove prose contrary to their personal beliefs or determine the notability of a topic about which they know nothing. Issues fester when people and communities are denied their voice by those placed in power within the Wikipedia community. No one said building free knowledge was easy. After twenty years of fabrication, Wikipedia still prevents the very thing it set out to change.
What Is Knowledge Equity?
Defining knowledge equity is difficult, but it’s something I’ve been personally involved with as part of Wikimedia 2030. Wikimedia 2030 is an effort to advance free knowledge in a way that truly represents human diversity, and openly welcome others to join by building services and structures to enable participation. Nine teams involving more than one hundred people worked for over a year to outline services and structures for Wikimedia 2030. Building an environment for knowledge equity is as complicated as defining it. Knowledge equity is one of those concepts easier to frame in stating what it is not rather than what it is. At this point, Wikipedia is not knowledge equity. The community knows this, so accordingly in 2017, in the early stages of the strategic direction work, Wikimedia 2030 framed knowledge equity as a commitment toward welcoming those underrepresented and excluded: “As a social movement, we will focus our efforts on the knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege. We will welcome people from every background to build strong and diverse communities. We will break down the social, political, and technical barriers preventing people from accessing and contributing to free knowledge.”3
In the future, there will be more and more people using Wikimedia projects all over the world. Barriers to knowledge equity need to be demolished to ensure the diverse and equitable participation that knowledge equity embodies. The possibility for Wikipedia to deliver quality education seems obvious; however, creating and following a path to knowledge equity is not. There are no best practices, no guides, and no magic wands to ensure progress.
How is knowledge equity addressed so far?
Wikipedia aligns with knowledge equity in its catchphrase “sum of all human knowledge” and aspires toward knowledge equity in the way it formed to collect, preserve, and provide free knowledge. Wikipedia’s position on knowledge equity is an extension of the idea that education is a human right.4 Despite education being considered a human right, this is not sufficiently recognized, educational opportunities are not available to everyone, and certainly not equitably.5 Currently, more than 262 million youth are out of school with six out of ten struggling to obtain basic literacy, leading to the 750 million illiterate adults.6 The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) asserted that everyone has the right to education.7 While over seventy years old, the notion that education is a human right is still a radical thought, but it’s one Wikipedia aspires to represent.
Who is working toward knowledge equity?
Initiatives to improve access to information and knowledge equity with Wikipedia have taken various forms. All of these projects include scholars, activists, and enthusiasts focused on knowledge preservation for the sake of humans. The quantifiable effect of these initiatives vary, but the message is clear. The world needs a way to share knowledge without boundaries imposed by society.
Some examples of organizations working toward knowledge equity using Wikipedia include the Wiki Education Foundation and their work on improving student learning outcomes using Wikipedia, The Wikipedia Library by providing access to paywalled databases for Wikipedia contributors, and Wikipedia + Libraries: Better Together program to strengthen the relationship between public libraries and Wikipedia.8 Through these educational innovations, knowledge becomes attainable, discoverable, and ultimately conceivable to those systemically excluded. By changing the minds of educators and knowledge professionals about Wikipedia and providing them with the resources to educate their communities, the reach is exponential. This work to fill the gap illustrates people comprehend Wikipedia’s application potential for knowledge equity. But is potential enough?
Where Does Wikipedia Fail Knowledge Equity?
Just like people not appreciating education as a human right, people are resistant to support Wikipedia. Wikipedia disrupts in a way that has improved education. As I write this in 2019, successes using Wikipedia for education have been well-documented. Yet some academics and knowledge professionals stigmatize Wikipedia use in academic and educational environments. Studies now emphasize the propensity of academics to consult Wikipedia, and their desire to conceal their perceived intellectual infidelity from the academe, considering it departs from traditional scholarship.9 This unease of educators with Wikipedia only exaggerates the barriers to knowledge equity. If academics distrust Wikipedia, the effect at the local level means they will not utilize Wikipedia to teach information literacy, critical thinking, or writing. On a larger scale, they will not transfer their knowledge and skills into Wikipedia contributions. This stigma limits the expanse of content by individuals who possess the skills and resources to produce fully-cited, quality Wikipedia articles about potentially specialized topics.
This might not seem like that big of a deal for many of you reading this. This is because opportunities for education are assumed for the part of humanity privileged enough to have access to educational resources, such as computers, books, or something many of us take for granted, like language. Even so, this education, even in privileged countries, does not mean quality education.10 Socio-economic status and family educational attainment level greatly influence educational possibilities for children.11 Wikipedia can fill this gap, but only if bias about Wikipedia resists interfering. To some extent, Wikipedia has begun to fill the educational gap, albeit in a very imbalanced way.
This uneven landscape on Wikipedia demonstrates the lack of diverse participation and coverage. Wikipedia has a rampant bias problem in their community structures of power and privilege, which covertly operate to unseat knowledge equity. The Wikimedia 2030 commitment serves as a guide on what Wikipedia plans to do to achieve knowledge equity, but they have not yet said how. Social barriers growing from structures of power and privilege will be the hardest to overcome. That is on us. Wikipedia is the platform to support knowledge equity, and, of course, a provider of free knowledge should practice knowledge equity. The people building the encyclopedia need to practice it too.
What Is Bias and Who Has It?
Wikipedia has a bias problem. And it’s all our fault. Considering various perspectives proves challenging for humans. We only know what we have experienced and we act based upon our beliefs. Bias is our default setting. When threatened, scared, or particularly passionate about something, we fall back to our default setting. It’s not something anyone can prevent. Bias takes root in childhood and grows through one’s perception of experiences. People are not bad for having biases. We all have biases. Biases affect our actions, beliefs, relationships, and even our work.
Is Bias a Problem for Wikipedia?
Our work on Wikipedia, while we try to be neutral, will always be affected by bias. This means our bias effects Wikipedia’s policies, practices, content, and even contributor participation. Like people do, we block our way and hold on to biased thinking. Unknowingly, these beliefs built barriers to inclusion and maintained imbalanced participation. Many of us in the first twenty years have joined the Wikipedia community, found what we were dealing with, and left at one time or another. Certainly, this could be for any number of reasons, but my theory is the frustration leading to attrition stems from the barriers and challenges built by bias and societal power structures that are maintained within Wikipedia’s community.
Wikipedia’s challenge with bias is perpetuated by people refusing to acknowledge concerns and issues. Stepping back and examining one’s own bias is difficult: we have to work to think about our biases, and it is painful work. Admitting we have faults is hard. Often we hear the issue, we refuse to acknowledge that it is an issue considering, from our perspective, it is not. Some of us learned to actively listen and examine our biases, but some Wikipedia contributors refuse and even resist this personal work. For the Wikipedia community, not challenging bias is worse than ignorance. Bias affects everything, and allowing it to spread uncontrollably will lead to Wikipedia’s demise.
In an attempt to bring attention to Wikipedia’s bias problem, I presented a session about bias at Wikimania 2017 in Montréal.12 I knew there would be critics who reason bias on Wikipedia doesn’t exist. I completed my session agenda and asked for questions. One person stood up and asked how you tell someone they are wrong when they tell you that you acted in a biased manner? To my great delight, the room filled with chatter and murmurs. I opened up the floor for people from the audience to answer the question. Many responded with reflections of the content of the session, and some even shared personal stories of how bias affected them and their work.
Even after very thoughtful responses, encouragement, and honest vulnerability, the person refused the possibility that they could be biased. This frustrated the person so terribly, the remainder of the multi-day event, they tried to convince me of my mistake. This resistance to addressing personal bias still haunts the contributor, as they posted about the interaction nearly two years later. They wrote a post in a discussion on English Wikipedia explaining their experience, expressing the feeling the audience in the room that day judged them unfairly. The person wondered in this post how to tell someone from a ‘minority group’ they are wrong, about encyclopedia writing, without them thinking it is a white man abusing his power privilege. Unfortunately, this is a white man abusing his power privilege. They choose to remain moored in their ways about encyclopedia development, knowledge curation, and equity, instead of asking questions like, How are we excluding people and their knowledge by doing things this way? Asking this question might end up being a real eye-opener for a lot of people, and could advance Wikipedia toward achieving knowledge equity.
Acknowledging this bias problem is hard, and painful, but it is not altogether gratuitous. Wikipedia grapples with bias and we need to be honest about our role in it. If this makes you uncomfortable, I’m truly pleased! Growth happens in discomfort. There has been growth in addressing issues with content, collaboration, and vandalism, but Wikipedia remains a reflection of society, and not in a good way. This reflection reverberates and magnifies the distortion and outright exclusion of history. We all need to be aware of the problem and take action to reduce the influence of bias.
Where Does Bias Show Up in Policy and Practice?
Wikipedia policies and practices largely follow Western traditions of knowledge sharing and information publishing and resist inclusion and evolution. This development and resistance of change sends the message that quality means Western, and serves to exclude anything and anyone not following these arbitrary principles intended to flag quality. These policies and practices functionally got us to where we are now, but for the next chapter in Wikipedia’s life, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard of inclusion when our perspectives and biases are challenged.
Wikipedia was built in the early 2000s. Wikipedia materialized through predominantly Western cisgender male voices, opinions, and societal inflections. Being the composition of people discussing and developing the policies was rather homogeneous, the results were exacting policies, practices, and community norms. The awareness in the community, at that time, illustrated a rather singular point-of-view and developed policies and practices accordingly. This foundation affects all aspects of Wikipedia concerning changes or inclusion.
In the story above, I hoped this fellow Wikipedia contributor would have instead listened and reflected on the beautiful vulnerability being given that day in the crowded room. Our approach was gentle and full of kindness. We knew this contributor meant no ill-will, but they are stuck viewing the world through their perspective. If they had reflected on the interaction, what they would have taken away from the session would have been very different. Perhaps they would instead see how, while not meaning to do so, they were applying their biased perspective on the situation and telling others in the community how things should be done. We are all victims of the stories we tell ourselves. Here I feel the contributor was telling themselves the story of, “This is the policy. They are not following the policy. I will educate them about this policy.” The response in situations like this should not be holding our policies so tightly that we cannot figure out how to listen to concerns and adapt our policies to a more inclusive and equitable world.
This narrow and inflexible behavior functions within the Wikipedia community to oppress and exclude. Simply because experience and history have been traditionally told from a white, cisgender male perspective, these voices and perspectives within society are taken as fact when often they are opinions or interpretations. We all experience life from our lived experiences; the Wikipedia community is no different.13
By infusing homogeneous points-of-view into the content, policies, and practices of a community, a disservice is being done. Content and people are being removed and excluded, considering they do not fit the template designed by the existing cohort of contributors. We need to all participate in the inclusion of all people and all human knowledge if Wikipedia is to stop preventing its success.
How Are Reliable Sources a Bad Thing?
A specific policy in particular preventing Wikipedia’s success in achieving knowledge equity identifies reliable sources. This policy strictly limits the sources and forms from which information can be used on Wikipedia. The aim for neutrality in content is applied in a way that removes anything varied or diverse. Instead, we should aim for balance in content, providing different viewpoints from diverse sources. Wikipedia provides educational content where there may have been little previously, but this content is incomplete and flawed if not diverse and inclusive. For example, no article will be written if there is no source to meet the standards of the Wikipedia community and that information is excluded from history. The difficulty lies in the bias people making the policies on Wikipedia have for publications and knowledge sharing practices.
The difficulty with following the reliable sources policy is the content used to develop Wikipedia provides only a partial picture, and one developed and interpreted by someone potentially outside of the culture and community from which the information came. Information developed in this way is flawed. As long as contributors rely on this type of content, we humans supply the complications for Wikipedia. If sources of reliable content must fit certain forms, that are generally published secondary sources, we are replicating and magnifying the bias already depicted by such published secondary sources. A broad swath of published secondary sources depicts this bias. The information deemed valuable and worthy of publication follows societal practices dominated by white, cisgender male perspectives and what they find important.
Generally, written material is often developed in this skewed process, as it is developed by an exclusive group of people following their perception of importance and topical perspective. This means content used for Wikipedia is developed using a biased anthropological lens. Wikipedia failed to recognize and deviate from this practice early in policy development, and values and uses similarly biased material to build its content, while excluding diverse sources of information. Content on Wikipedia can always be edited and allows for more information to be infused as there can be any number of editors on an article, so while this may be the current and prior state of Wikipedia, this does not have to be the future. The difficulty Wikipedia faces is contributors shedding the preconceived notions about knowledge, quality content, and reliable sources. This is what the first twenty years of Wikipedia has been, but that does not mean the future is following a set trajectory.
What Went Wrong?
What Wikipedia did wrong here was not specifically defining inclusion and equity in the sum of all human knowledge. If not specifically listed, communities remain excluded. Although societal groups with power possess the privileges to address ignorance, the responsibility for abolishing ignorance unfairly lies with the excluded or oppressed. This emotional labor taxes an already overtaxed individual and community. If Wikipedia hopes to be inclusive, this must change.
In the Wikipedia community, people are not listening to each other. Collaboration devolves into combative discourse. Language, like that used in the story above, demonstrates the word choice and tone explicable to those of us all too familiar with the harsh sting of biased thinking (i.e. racism, sexism), yet these words, their weight, and the biased thinking that brought them into being remain an enigma to the ‘social majority’. Many of the discussions surrounding knowledge equity, reliability, verifiability, and neutrality draw their energy from bias. These discussions tend to follow a defensive thought process instead of a responsive one. Certainly, people cannot be faulted for ignorance itself, but people can be faulted when they choose to remain ignorant when information abounds to demonstrate their limited perspective on the issue. To get beyond the challenges we face as people writing an encyclopedia, we must truly hear one another.
How the community, however, continues to react to questions about the policies, practices, and community norms infuses toxicity into an already saturated environment. Notable people cannot be documented because nothing about them exists in an acceptable published format.14 Information is discredited, even when quoted from the subject in an oral history.15 Scientists suddenly become notable because of their awards, instead of their work in the field, while their male colleagues had Wikipedia articles well before any such acknowledgment.16 These issues are visible to some of us, but just like other communities on the Internet, Wikipedia has a problem with a group of users. These users generally band together to attempt to dismantle any discussion with which they disagree. The difficulty is, this group seems powerful due to their use of unfettered time and abuse of policy.
In the Wikipedia community, people attribute high qualities to themselves or boast about qualities the community has defined to signal expertise (i.e. edit count) and use that testimonial injustice to wield power, affect perception, and control discussions. It is used in place of expertise. The length of contributor tenure can be used to solidify their power position in a discussion. For example, when discussing information gatekeeping as a worrisome practice, another contributor disagreed with me. Instead of engaging respectfully on the discussion, they chose to “read all 48 pages” of my website and post a message on my talk page about being “great enemies” if I disagree with them. The person justified this behavior by mentioning the countless hours and thousands of dollars they contributed to Wikipedia. This uncomfortable experience was mild compared to that of others, but they all have the same intentions: to silence diverse voices. The rampantly unchecked power dynamics within the community continue to attempt to silence the voices capable of addressing bias in content and policy on Wikipedia. These diverse voices aim to ensure Wikipedia’s success for the next twenty years. This can only happen with appropriate disruption of the power and privilege dynamics Wikipedia adopted from society.
As a community, we must refuse to tolerate inappropriate behavior, harassment, and abuse of power structures. My work with Wikimedia 2030 includes numerous community-building recommendations. One in particular is a universal Code of Conduct. This Code of Conduct could greatly improve the situation in the Wikipedia community.17 This would signal a culture change within the community. In this change, we should refuse to ignore the bad behavior of high-volume contributors, encourage policy updates to be more inclusive and responsive for the sake of knowledge equity, and examine our individual biases and accept feedback. Fear exists about standing up for certain standards in our community. After all, ‘civility’ has been operationalized to silence dissenting voices for nearly two decades. There is fear that if we stand up to bad behavior people will leave and the encyclopedia will lose contributors. I would rather lose thousands of contributors than work in a community allowing inequity to continue unchecked.
The Wikipedia we need to improve knowledge equity on a human rights scale must eliminate narrow policies, practices and elevate the culture to become inclusive. Western thought focuses on examining phenomena through an anthropological lens as if Westerners are the ones bestowed with the authority to define the meaning of an object, practice, or the human experience. The trouble with this is, as the majority of the contributors in the Wikipedia community are Western, Westerners are terrible as deciphering injustice, as we are so keen on justice.18 If we are not reaching the people who need our service, we are practicing inequity. Until we begin pushing the community to stop looking for justice and instead start looking for equity, we cannot be effective on a global scale.
Is There Hope?
Education serves as a great tool for social mobility and stability. Wikipedia paints an illustration of daily acts of human decency. We witnessed tech companies position their products for company gains. Here the Wikipedia community works tirelessly for societal good via an unmatched source of volunteerism. The rather homogeneous composition of the contributor pool, the partisan policies they created, and the inconsistent way in which the policies are practiced often leads to some festering imbalances. The sum of all human knowledge cannot be built under these conditions where logic is designed out of the illogical. But there is hope. Wikipedia is just turning twenty. This is only the beginning with an undefined trajectory ahead.
This decision for how to initiate this change is for no one person, or homogeneous group, to undertake. The curation of knowledge, development of policies, and denial of change decided in such groups stunts the growth of Wikipedia. It serves no purpose or benefit to the longevity or growth of Wikipedia. Continuing to accept community consensus developed through homogeneous groups will keep Wikipedia in a perpetually sophomoric existence. We should be concerned about quality sources, and we need to listen to what quality sources mean across the world. We should volunteer, and we should make space at the table for more people to volunteer too. There is not a limited amount of equity.
Equity comes from actions people take against oppressive and imbalanced policies and practices in society. We can change the world if we choose to enact equitable policies and practices on Wikipedia, refuse to manipulate discourse to squash diverse perspectives, and acknowledge that change is not scary but rather impressive. Many seem to think, the word ‘change’ complicates everything. Perhaps the word evokes pain and humans learned to avoid it. I say this with a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor. Without change, we continue to inflict and deepen wounds opened by oppression, exclusion, and continued ignorance. Change and equity are often imagined by the privileged groups in ways where things are ‘taken away’. Imagine what Wikipedia will gain: more content, meaning more education, and more coverage of the sum of all human knowledge. Even after all of this, there will still be room for Wikipedia pages about Pokémon.19 I promise.
What Can Be Done?
Wikipedia’s progress toward free knowledge is evident in the established community and millions of pages of content, yet to exist inclusively, and even make a good attempt at creating the sum of all human knowledge, there is much that needs to change. Wikipedia as a community needs to set some boundaries. Wikipedia’s first twenty years were a good start, but we need to do more, particularly regarding our biases, if there is any hope we will build an encyclopedia that is the sum of all human knowledge.
My personal story might sound familiar to many of you, but it might also be different in many ways. I encourage everyone to share their own experiences. By listening to each other’s lived experiences, we learn, grow and change and as a community, we can improve the trajectory for Wikipedia. The community must learn to be open, and not only accept what they find acceptable for themselves, but accept what is needed for knowledge equity.20
In addressing knowledge equity, and implementing these changes to reduce the effect of societal challenges on Wikipedia, we must proceed with care. Some areas need more structured support than others, like with managing bad behavior and enforcing a Code of Conduct. This structured support must remain in place until other community methods are capable of managing and handling the situations, without perpetuating the abuse cycle already acceptable within the Wikipedia community. Shifting the support too quickly away from a community will inevitably exacerbate inequalities, and deplete the finite resources equity advocates expend through emotional labor. Additionally, we must encourage growth through methods of listening, witnessing, and advocating. Growth this way can change the possibilities for Wikipedia and knowledge equity.
Wikipedia as a community and an encyclopedia has accomplished some amazing things in the first twenty years of its life. We learned what it means to collaborate online to build an encyclopedia. Much information developed about online communities, online collaboration, and information sharing. Educators and knowledge professionals began using Wikipedia to teach information literacy, regardless of the concerns and issues colleagues expressed. The Wikipedia community has come so far, but there is so much more to be done. If there is any hope for truly achieving the sum of all human knowledge, the next chapter in Wikipedia’s life needs to meaningfully address the inequities perpetuated by bias. Although unfinished, rather progressive in some circles, and a little rough around the edges, even at twenty, Wikipedia is the experimental educational equalizer and the solution to knowledge equity. We just have to stop preventing its success.
1. “Leading SDG4 - Education 2030,” UNESCO, accessed July 29, 2019, https://en.unesco.org/themes/education2030-sdg4.
2. Alison Flood, “Wikipedia bumps women from ‘American novelists’ category,” The Guardian, accessed July 20, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/apr/25/wikipedia-women-american-novelists.
3. “Wikimedia Movement Direction: Knowledge Equity,” Wikimedia Movement, accessed June 16, 2019, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/.
4. “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” United Nations, accessed June 16, 2019, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspx.
5. “Reducing Global Poverty Through Universal Primary and Secondary Education,” UNESCO, accessed June 16, 2019, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000250392.
6. “Leading SDG4 - Education 2030,” UNESCO, accessed July 29, 2019, https://en.unesco.org/themes/education2030-sdg4.
7. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” 10 December 1948, United Nations Department of Public Information, accessed July 29, 2019, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_universal_declaration_of_human_rights_10_December_1948.jpg.
8. Wiki Education Foundation, https://wikiedu.org; “Student Learning Outcomes using Wikipedia-based Assignments: Fall 2016 Research Report,” Wiki Education Foundation, accessed June 10, 2019, https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Student_Learning_Outcomes_using_Wikipedia-based_Assignments_Fall_2016_Research_Report.pdf; The Wikipedia Library, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library; “Wikipedia + Libraries: Better Together,” WebJunction, accessed June 10, 2019, https://www.webjunction.org/explore-topics/wikipedia-libraries.html.
9. Eduard Aibar, Josep Lladós-Masllorens, Antoni Meseguer-Artola, Julia` Minguillón, and Maura Lerga, “Wikipedia at University: What Faculty Think and Do About It,” The Electronic Library, 33 no. 4: 668 - 683, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EL-12-2013-0217.
10. “Achievement gap in the United States,” English Wikipedia, accessed June 17, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gap_in_the_United_States.
11. Alice Sullivan, Sosthenes C. Ketende, and Heather Joshi, “Social Class and Inequalities in Early Cognitive Scores,” Sociology, 47 no. 6: 1187-1206, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270504967_Social_Class_and_Inequalities_in_Early_Cognitive_Scores; Cory Turner, “Why America’s Schools Have A Money Problem,” Morning Edition from NPR, accessed June 14, 2019, https://www.npr.org/2016/04/18/474256366/why-americas-schools-have-a-money-problem.
12. Jackie Koerner, “Birth of Bias: Implicit Bias’ Permanence on Wikipedia,” Wikimania 2017, accessed on June 10, 2019, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Koerner_Implicit_Bias_Wikimania_2017.pdf.
13. Marti Johnson and Alex Wang, “Wikimedia Foundation releases gender equity report,” Wikimedia Foundation, accessed on June 10, 2019, https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/21/advancing-gender-equity-conversations-with-movement-leaders/; Amanda Menking, “‘People Who Can Take It’: How Women Wikipedians Negotiate & Navigate Safety,” Medium, accessed June 10, 2019, https://medium.com/acm-chi/people-who-can-take-it-how-women-wikipedians-negotiate-navigate-safety-322077463ae1.
14. “Notability is geared towards the white male perspective,” Notability Policy talk page, English Wikipedia, accessed June 10, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability/Archive_63.
15. “Oral History,” English Wikipedia, accessed on June 10, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oral_history.
16. Dawn Bazely, “Why Nobel winner Donna Strickland didn’t have a Wikipedia page,” The Washington Post, accessed June 10, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/08/why-nobel-winner-donna-strickland-didnt-have-wikipedia-page/?utm_term=.f0c748d01376.
17. “Your Code of Conduct,” Open Source Guides, accessed June 10, 2019, https://opensource.guide/code-of-conduct/.
18. Miranda Fricker, Epistemic Injustice: Power & the Ethics of Knowing, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).
19. “Wikipedia: Pokémon Test,” English Wikipedia, accessed June 10, 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pok%C3%A9mon_test.
20. Walter Frick, “Wikipedia is More Biased Than Britannica, but Don’t Blame the Crowd,” Harvard Business Review, accessed June 10, 2019, https://hbr.org/2014/12/wikipedia-is-more-biased-than-britannica-but-dont-blame-the-crowd.