Wikipedia:We are absolutely here to right great wrongs

Wikipedians work to empower people everywhere to access knowledge, to participate in its creation, and to share it freely. Neutrality is the cornerstone of Wikipedia’s mission, but neutrality is not merely about avoiding bias in our articles:

1. Neutrality is about creating a platform that is neutral in scope, inclusive in coverage, and equitable in the opportunities it offers to contributors. Neutrality means striving for balance in the the stories we tell and the voices we amplify.
2. When we avoid addressing the wrongs that have shaped societies and communities, we are not neutral—we are complicit.
3. True neutrality is neither passive nor indifferent. It is an active commitment to providing an inclusive portrayal of the world, which involves addressing the wrongs that have shaped our history and continue to influence our present.

With our mission comes great responsibility—to actively engage in righting great wrongs—and doing so marks not a departure from neutrality but rather its fulfillment.

Objections first

"You might think that Wikipedia is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that is absolutely not the case," states WP:RGW, an influential essay explaining "Disruptive editing." Wikipedia is not a platform for activism, social justice, or rectifying inequities. Wikipedia's sole purpose is to be a neutral, reliable, and verifiable encyclopedia. Period. Consequences be damned.

What are the objections to righting great wrongs?

1. We're Here to Write an Encyclopedia: The purpose of Wikipedia is to compile information in an encyclopedic format, not to engage in activism or social justice.
2. Wikipedia is Not a Platform for Advocacy: Wikipedia should not be used for promoting specific causes, even if those causes are noble.
3. We Just Follow What the Sources Say: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and if those sources don’t address certain injustices, then neither should Wikipedia.
4. Let Reliable Sources Correct Themselves First: Wikipedia should wait for reliable sources to correct biases or omissions rather than taking proactive steps.
5. Wikipedia Should Reflect the World as It Is, Not How We Want It to Be: Wikipedia should reflect reality, even if the real world is biased or unjust.
6. Editors Are Under No Responsibility to Edit Any Particular Subject: Wikipedians are volunteers, and there’s no obligation to focus on social injustices.
7. We Can't Fix Every Wrong, So We Shouldn't Try: The sheer number of global injustices is overwhelming, and Wikipedia can't possibly address them all.

Countering the arguments

Ignoring the social context of knowledge can lead to incomplete or biased entries. A passive approach to neutrality can perpetuate the status quo, especially when reliable sources or marginalized issues are systematically overlooked.

1. Skeptics of the above view fear actively engaging with current social or historical injustices will compromise Wikipedia’s neutrality. But, if we ignore the great wrongs of history and the present day, we compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.
2. Skeptics say Wikipedia shouldn’t be used to advance social justice. But neutrality is about representing multiple perspectives, including the stories of those who have been historically oppressed. If we fail to include these, we are reinforcing biases. We are currently lacking key people and points of view.
3. Skeptics say focusing on human rights or historical injustices turns Wikipedia into an advocacy platform. But documenting these issues is not advocacy. Neutrality requires us to present these topics factually and inclusively, giving voice to those who have been harmed while maintaining reliability.
4. Skeptics argue updating historical accounts introduces bias. But neutrality doesn’t mean accepting traditional narratives without question. It means critically examining them, correcting bias that has skewed our understanding of the past.
5. Skeptics assert we must avoid historical revisionism. But writing history should be informed by new evidence. Wikipedia’s commitment to verifiability and balanced representation ensures updates to historical content are grounded in factual accuracy not the imposition of contemporary values.
6. Skeptics argue correcting wrongs could lead Wikipedia to favor political ideologies or movements, surfacing personal biases and partisanship. But Wikipedia follows rigorous standards, consensus processes, and transparent editing practices that prevent any one perspective from dominating.
7. Skeptics worry focusing on righting wrongs will erode trust in Wikipedia, or give a perception we are "woke" or left-leaning. But enduring public trust depends on our commitment to neutrality in its full sense. If we shy away from addressing wrongs, we risk losing that trust, or worse, of not being worthy of it.
8. Skeptics argue it’s not our job to advocate for underrepresented communities. But expanding representation is not advocacy—it’s ensuring Wikipedia is inclusive and represents more due perspectives. We should prioritize articles on marginalized groups not to push an agenda but to fulfill our mission.
9. Skeptics worry focusing on content for underserved regions could dilute our standards. But our mission demands Wikipedia serves everyone. This involves increasing content in underserved languages and focusing on topics relevant to developing countries.
10. Skeptics worry righting wrongs could lead to the inclusion of less rigorous sources or fringe perspectives. But Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines need not be compromised. We must use more and better sources to right great wrongs.
11. Skeptics dismiss that gaps in coverage are their responsibility. Editing is voluntary, but we cannot ignore our collective role. Encouraging editors to engage with underrepresented topics is key to making Wikipedia a global knowledge repository.
12. Skeptics underestimate Wikipedia’s impact. Even if Wikipedia cannot fix every wrong, it can make a significant difference by documenting them and providing accurate information that contributes to understanding and dialogue.
13. Skeptics assert such a shift in focus would alienate long-time contributors who joined the platform to provide neutral and factual information, not to engage in social justice work. But the evolution of Wikipedia’s content to include broader perspectives is an extension of its mission to document human knowledge.

We too should embody the principle of active neutrality in our interactions with one another. This means fostering a diverse, respectful and welcoming community. If not, Wikipedia risks losing its position as an impartial documenter of truths.

What we can do

While Wikipedia's primary mission is to provide a neutral, reliable, and verifiable source of information rather than to act as an activist platform, there are areas where it can, does, and absolutely should play a greater role in addressing informational imbalances:

1. We can provide accurate, inclusive coverage of marginalized groups. Wikipedia has articles on LGBTQ+ history, Indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities. We should expand coverage to ensure diverse perspectives are represented, counteracting historical erasure and bias.
2. We can highlight contributions of non-western cultures, increasing the visibility of global knowledge and heritage. Wikipedia covers topics related to non-western philosophies, sciences, and cultural achievements. We should expand coverage, ensuring a rich and inclusive representation of global history and knowledge.
3. We can highlight historical events where injustice occurred. Wikipedia provides information on topics like colonialism, slavery, and civil rights. We should improve the depth of these articles, correcting narratives that are biased or incomplete.
4. We can promote knowledge in low-income countries, increasing access to information in more languages and regions. Wikipedia has versions in hundreds of languages. We should focus on ensuring information relevant to developing countries is well-covered and accessible.
5. We can rectify the historical underrepresentation of women in various fields. Wikipedia has initiatives which aim to increase the visibility of women. We should ensure that women’s achievements across all fields are accurately and fully represented, helping to combat systemic gender bias.
6. We can educate the public on critical environmental issues. Wikipedia has content on climate change, conservation, and environmental science. We should update and expand articles to reflect the latest research, helping to inform global audiences about the urgent challenges facing the planet.
7. We can document knowledge about endangered languages, traditions, and cultural practices. Wikipedia contains articles on cultural heritage topics that might otherwise be overlooked. We should prioritize documenting endangered cultures and languages, contributing to their preservation.
8. We can disseminate accurate health information. Wikipedia provides articles on medical content like pandemics, vaccinations, and sanitation. We should improve health-related content to educate people worldwide on critical health issues.
9. We can document human rights abuses. Articles on genocides, apartheid, and oppression vitally inform readers. We should ensure these topics are covered inclusively and give voice to victims through well-researched information.
10. We can document and explain the mechanisms and effects of economic inequality. Wikipedia covers topics related to economic disparity, poverty, and social welfare. We should improve and expand coverage on economic inequality, highlighting systemic issues and potential solutions.
11. We can challenge authoritarian narratives, offering fact-based information that counters propaganda. Wikipedia covers topics like censorship, state-controlled media, and political repression. We should ensure articles on political topics are well-sourced and resistant to manipulation.
12. We can bring attention to conflicts and crises that are underreported in western media. Wikipedia has articles on regions that often receive little attention. We should expand coverage of ongoing and historical conflicts in less-covered regions, ensuring these events are documented and visible.
13. We can provide coverage of legal information, educating the public about rights, procedures, and precedents. Wikipedia has articles on topics that help demystify complex legal concepts for the public. We should enhance the coverage of legal information, particularly in areas related to human and civil rights.
14. We can improve digital literacy, serving as a resource for improving critical thinking. Wikipedia editing itself is an education on critical thinking. We should strengthen resources related to digital literacy, helping users navigate the internet responsibly and evaluate the information they encounter.
15. We can offer content adapted to different reading levels and needs. Wikipedia is free and generally accessible to a wide audience in many languages. We should improve accessibility by offering content in simplified language, ensuring compatibility with screen readers, and integrating visual media.
16. We can promote a sense of global citizenship and interconnectedness. Wikipedia provides a platform for learning about diverse cultures and shared challenges. We should encourage content that fosters understanding, empathy, and a sense of responsibility, contributing to a more informed and engaged global citizenry.

But Verifiability

Verifiability is a cornerstone of Wikipedia; it ensures information is grounded in reliable, evidence-based sources. However, rather than seeing verifiability as a limitation, we should view it as a framework within which we can expand our coverage in the service or righting great wrongs and neutrality:

1. Verifiability doesn’t mean we’re limited to mainstream or traditional sources, which may themselves be products of historical bias. There are many reliable sources that focus on marginalized communities, overlooked histories, and injustices themselves. Our job is to seek out these sources.
2. Verifiability can be a powerful tool in challenging the status quo. By insisting on well-sourced information, we can expose biases in the sources themselves. We can use verifiable sources to document and correct these biases.
3. Verifiability is not an excuse to exclude topics simply because they’re underrepresented in mainstream sources. Instead, this should motivate us to dig deeper, and when reliable sources do exist, we have a responsibility to use them.
4. Verifiability inherently affects notability. And while some topics are excluded because of an underlying publication bias, we can still advance social issues through the selection and improvement of which notable topics we write about.
5. Verifiability is not static. As new research emerges, so does the opportunity to expand and update our content. By staying engaged with ongoing scholarship, particularly in fields that address historical wrongs or injustices, we can continue to improve our coverage and ensure that Wikipedia reflects the latest, most accurate understanding of these complex issues.

While verifiability sets necessary parameters for our work, it does not have to limit our ability to right great wrongs. Instead, it can guide us to do so more effectively.

We are the knowledge elite

We are the knowledge elite: individuals and groups who possess a high degree of access to information, education, skills, and expertise. We have, whether we want or realize it, significant influence on public discourse and social norms.

1. We are writers, researchers, and communicators who play a critical role in disseminating knowledge. We influence how history is taught, how current events are understood, and how future generations are educated.
2. We hold positions of influence in academia, media, journalism, and other sectors that shape public opinion and societal values. Our insights guide discussions, frame debates, and influence the direction of social change.
3. We design policies that impact systemic issues for vulnerable populations. We have a moral duty to address policies that sustain or exacerbate inequality.
4. We counteract falsehoods with evidence-based information in an age of widespread misinformation, we. Our ability to critically analyze is crucial in protecting societies from the harmful effects of ignorance and propaganda.
5. We have access to resources that uncover, analyze, and explain complex issues that may be hidden or misunderstood by the general public. Our expertise allows us to identify injustices, understand their causes, and explore solutions.
6. We have the ability to amplify the voices of those who are marginalized. By using our platform and influence, we help bring attention to issues affecting underrepresented communities.
7. We have the capacity to foster global understanding on issues like climate change, human rights, and global health. Our work transcends boundaries and contributes to solving global challenges.
8. We recognize knowledge is ever-evolving and continuous learning is essential to understanding and addressing injustices. We must remain open to new ideas and information, to adjust our actions as new knowledge emerges.
9. We empower the next generation of leaders and thinkers. Through education and mentorship, we inspire others to take up the causes of inclusivity and equity.

We hold a privileged position, and with privilege comes duty to address injustices, promote equity, and contribute to a better world. Our real enemy is complacency not activism. Complacency leads to biases, inaccuracies, and knowledge gaps, particularly where historical or societal wrongs have been misrepresented or omitted.

In conclusion

We are absolutely here to right great wrongs, and we do so through our commitment to neutrality—not as a passive state, but as an active, deliberate practice. Embrace this bold vision of neutrality. Seek out stories that have been forgotten or overlooked. Challenge biases that have skewed our understanding of history and society. Remember neutrality demands more than just facts without bias—it requires us to engage with the world around us, correct imbalances, and ensure Wikipedia remains the pinnacle of human knowledge. Go, right great wrongs!