Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/WikiProject report

The global reckoning over racial justice arising from the homicide of George Floyd while he was in police custody on May 25 has prompted many Wikipedians to turn inward, asking how we as a group ought to respond to the upheavals and protests stemming from this event. Racial bias on Wikipedia, arising in part from the under-representation of black editors, has long been regarded as a major issue facing the project, but the community has also traditionally had an uneasy relationship with activism, which can easily lead to violations of the esteemed neutral point of view policy if not kept in check.

This tension was on display this past month as the community firmly rejected proposals to black out Wikipedia (as was done in 2012 in opposition to SOPA) or create a Black Lives Matter-focused Main Page. Instead, efforts turned toward improving Wikipedia's content related to the movement, resulting in the creation of WikiProject Black Lives Matter.

As of press time, the project has 44 listed participants, 58 threads on its talk page with 55 participants, and 411 articles tagged for improvement in the project's scope. Discussions have addressed Wikipedia's burgeoning coverage of recent events, as well as articles on broader topics like police brutality and racial bias on Wikipedia outside of pages in the project's direct scope. The Signpost interviewed three participants who responded to an open invitation on the project's talk page; Another Believer, Smirkybec, and Phoebe. Here are our questions and their answers.

Why did you decide to launch/get involved with this WikiProject? If you are comfortable sharing, to what extent have you been involved with Black Lives Matter off-wiki?

• Another Believer: I created the WikiProject because I wanted to create a space where editors could work together to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Black Lives Matter movement and related topics. There are existing projects focused on black culture and history (AfroCrowd, Black Lunch Table, Black WikiHistory Month, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, etc.) but I saw no harm in having a focused project tackle topics like police brutality, racial justice, and social justice reform. I think the current political climate and recent news coverage has forced people to confront these issues, and we have a responsibility to make Wikipedia helpful for those who are seeking answers to questions.
• Smirkybec: Like most countries across the world at the moment, Ireland has seen demonstrations, protests and a lot of public debate (and backlash) in response to the killing of George Floyd. As is normal, I started seeing a lot of social media posts and articles listing Irish organisations, authors, artists, musicians and activists that were being highlighted as voices and groups to support in an Irish context. I was very surprised to find many, if not all, of the people and groups being talked about had little or no Wikipedia presence. I quickly decided to devote my Wiki editing for the foreseeable future to working on these topics and biographies and adding them to WikiProject BLM. Due to the pandemic restrictions in Ireland, unfortunately I have not been involved in the BLM protests in Dublin.
• Phoebe: I wanted to help organize the energy and momentum that we are seeing around topics related to Black Lives Matter right now; as user:Another Believer notes, there are several long-term projects about these and related topics, but there is no time like the present to make a push to really make our coverage as high-quality as it can possibly be.

How would you assess the state of BLM content on Wikipedia right now?

• Smirkybec: From an Irish perspective, there is a huge amount of work to be done on both historic and contemporary topics. I would say that depending on the context you come from, BLM content may well be non-existent.
• Phoebe: I see decent coverage of people and major events, tragedies and protests that have hit the news, but there is a lot of work to do both on lesser-known events and people, and on articles about underlying and systemic topics (like police brutality in the United States) and related laws -- these are difficult editing tasks, but important. And, there is a lot to do in non-English Wikipedias and Wikidata too.

You are organizing an editathon for June. What major tasks are you planning on taking on?

• Another Believer: As the primary author of George Floyd protests in Portland, Oregon, I plan to continue updating this entry and uploading my photographs of local demonstrations to Wikimedia Commons. I've also been focused on the lists of George Floyd protests and helping to fork out content appropriately. I write about public art often, so I'd like to expand the articles about recently removed monuments and memorials.
• Smirkybec: I plan on writing about as many BIPOC from or in Ireland, and if I can't write full biographies, I plan on diversifying as many relevant articles relating to Ireland and their experiences. This will probably focus on the experiences of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Ireland (as the BLM protests have) as well other forms of discrimination and racism in Ireland towards groups such as the Travelling community.
• Phoebe: Like Another Believer, I've been working on the various 'list of George Floyd protests' articles -- there is a lot to do, we can't keep up with the news (and as with so many breaking news topics, Wikipedia is one of the few compendia of information right now). I'd like to spend some time working on core articles and getting them towards GA/FA. I also helped out with this very successful global editathon organized by user:Jesswade88 and others - it was inspirational to get 200 people, including many brand-new to Wikipedia, sign up because they wanted to work on biographies of Black scientists and more.

How would you respond to editors who might argue that the existence of this project violates WP:NPOV in some way?

• Another Believer: We're seeking to improve Wikipedia in compliance with the site's goals and guidelines. What's wrong with this?
• Smirkybec: All of the work that I (and editors I collaborate with) is to improve Wikipedia while working within its guidelines and guiding principles. Wikipedia is a mirror on the world, and should reflect the full diversity of the world and the experiences of Wikipedia readers in 2020.
• Phoebe: The protests that we are seeing right now around the death of George Floyd are historic -- one of the biggest protest movements to ever happen in the US and globally -- and the Black Lives Matter movement before and since is also crucial to our modern history. On Wikipedia, we document what happens in the world: period.

A proposal to black out Wikipedia in support of Black Lives Matter was closed with clear consensus against, in part because of concerns that it could threaten Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality. But we also had Wikimedia CEO Katherine Maher co-write a blog post endorsing the movement. To what extent is it the role of Wikipedia or Wikimedia to take a stance on this issue?

• Phoebe: Wikimedia and Wikipedia are different. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia project; Wikimedia is a technology non-profit that runs one of the most-accessed websites in the world. To that end, I do think the Wikimedia Foundation has a responsibility in its role as a technology company, employer, leading non-profit and advocate for free culture to take a stand advocating for justice and equality. For Wikipedia, while I wish we used the immense power of our platform more often to advocate for these values, I do understand the argument that the encyclopedia doesn't take a stand (while also recognizing that the entire concept of free knowledge for everyone in their own language is not a historically neutral one).

The media has struggled to balance coverage of the more peaceful aspects of the protest with the more sensational rioting that has in some cases come along with it. Is "if it bleeds, it leads" a problem on Wikipedia, too, and if so, how should it be addressed?

• Smirkybec: Unfortunately most editors are not in a position to guide the narrative of the press or media outlets! All we can do is our own due diligence, looking for reliable sources outside of the most prominent voices to find that nuance and less sensational coverage that will ultimately generate better Wikipedia articles on content.
• Pheobe: As an editor on the protest articles, one thing I'm struggling with is that media coverage - and hence, the reliable sources that we need to use - is not focused on the protests after the initial sensationalist coverage of looting. In many US cities, we are seeing the 12th straight day of protests now, but that is not as intensively covered. I heard from a friend in Florida that she was at a major protest there with no media coverage at all. This is a real issue for Wikipedia's reporting, given our reliance on media reports.

Do you think this project will last after protesting dies down and less attention is focused on this matter, if it does?

• Another Believer: Maybe, but what's wrong with a WikiProject coming to end? Even if the WikiProject has a short lifespan, this space is serving a specific purpose at this time, and that's good enough for me. I would not be offended if the project were folded into another, or archived altogether. But, I'll be optimistic and hope the project sticks around for a long time.
• Smirkybec: Like all things driven by a community, there are ebbs and flows. Sometimes a group will work together for a finite period to work towards a common goal, but it may be that the WikiProject will go through peaks and troughs of engagement. In my experience most WikiProjects go through these kinds of cycles.
• Phoebe: I hope so. The topics, particularly as I mentioned the underlying "root cause" topics, will certainly not cease to be relevant after this news cycle ends. I can see this project being folded into a larger project (like the African Diaspora WikiProject) at some point, but the need to cover these topics well will not end.

Anything else you'd like to add?

• Another Believer: Black Lives Matter. Also, thanks to WikiProject members and other editors who are working to improve coverage of this movement and related topics. The subject matter may be difficult at times, but I have no doubt about the importance of this work.
• Smirkybec: It may feel US-centric to many international Wikipedians, but I have no doubt that most of us will find important conversations about racism and discrimination will be taking place in our own communities and those should be reflected in the content on Wikipedia. We owe it to our countries, localities, and communities to draw out those narratives and represent them to the rest of the world.
• Phoebe: One thing that we rarely talk about on Wikipedia is that our editor base is not particularly diverse. We've spent many years talking about the lack of women editors, but our lack of editors who identify as people of color is also a huge gap in our editor base, and is something that I would like to see both research into and a concerted effort to correct. That includes both focusing on topics of relevance and interest to folks, but also doing specific concerted outreach to specific communities, as AfroCROWD and Black Lunch Table have been doing for several years. We need to talk about the whiteness of Wikipedia and how this may be systematically biasing our coverage and content, while we also work to improve articles related to the civil rights movement, Black Lives Matter, and BIPOC individuals as much as we can. And - if you want to get involved, everyone is welcome to join the project and work on these articles!