1104: "The Flawed Gatekeeping of Knowledge on Wikipedia"

Interesting Things with JC #1104: "The Flawed Gatekeeping of Knowledge on Wikipedia" - How do Wikipedia's rules affect our understanding of history? Learn how its strict policies exclude credible historical sources, leading to biased narratives and knowledge loss. Why does this matter for our grasp of human history?

Curriculum - Episode Anchor

Episode Title:
The Flawed Gatekeeping of Knowledge on Wikipedia

Episode Number:
#1104

Host:
JC

Audience:
Grades 9–12, college intro, homeschool, lifelong learners

Subject Area:
Media Literacy, History, Information Studies, Civics

Lesson Overview

By the end of this lesson, students will be able to:

• Define the term "gatekeeping" in the context of information systems like Wikipedia.

• Compare primary historical sources with contemporary academic sources used in Wikipedia citations.

• Analyze the impact of citation policies on historical representation and public understanding.

• Explain how editorial rules influence the inclusion or exclusion of marginalized perspectives in digital encyclopedias.

Key Vocabulary

• Gatekeeping (ˈɡāt-ˌkē-piŋ) — The process by which information is filtered for dissemination, whether by an editor, algorithm, or platform policy.
  Example: Wikipedia’s citation rules are a form of gatekeeping that can exclude certain historical sources.

• Primary Source (ˈprī-ˌmer-ē sôrs) — A document or physical object created at the time under study.
  Example: A 1973 article from the Chicago Tribune is a primary source for events of that year.

• Citation Bias (ˈsī-ˌtā-shən ˈbī-əs) — The preference of certain types of sources over others due to editorial or systemic rules.
  Example: Wikipedia’s rejection of old newspaper articles can be an example of citation bias.

• Oral History (ˈȯr-əl ˈhis-t(ə-)rē) — The collection and study of historical information using sound recordings of interviews with people having personal knowledge of past events.
  Example: Many Indigenous cultures use oral history to preserve their traditions.

• Contemporary Bias (kən-ˈtem-pə-ˌrer-ē ˈbī-əs) — The influence of current ideologies and perspectives in evaluating or interpreting past events.
  Example: Wikipedia may reflect contemporary bias by favoring modern academic interpretations.

Narrative Core

• Open:
  JC introduces the paradox of Wikipedia’s flawed gatekeeping—how the most widely used online encyclopedia excludes certain legitimate sources of historical knowledge.

• Info:
  Wikipedia editors prioritize recent academic publications, often at the expense of contemporaneous sources like 1970s newspapers.

• Details:
  Firsthand historical narratives are rejected for not meeting modern standards, which results in erasing detailed, culturally relevant histories—especially those of marginalized groups.

• Reflection:
  JC reflects on how this systemic erasure affects the preservation of human knowledge, particularly through the lens of AI, oral tradition, and non-Western forms of recordkeeping.

• Closing:
  These are interesting things, with JC.

Transcript

When it comes to the world of knowledge, human knowledge, there's a flawed gatekeeping of knowledge specifically on Wikipedia. And interestingly, that same flawed Book of Knowledge is what's feeding some of your smart speakers at home.

Wikipedia's guidelines often lead editors to dismiss reputable historical publications like the Chicago Tribune from 1973. Despite being credible at the time of publication, such sources are often considered “unreliable” because they don't align with modern academic criteria.

This creates a massive paradox. The very documents that chronicle history as it happened are sidelined in favor of more recent interpretations by a third party. The implication is that historical accuracy then takes a backseat to procedural conformity. The citation process favors current academic research or publications over original time-specific accounts.

This dismissive approach means rich, detailed narratives from the past, filled with firsthand observations, get deleted. They're at risk of being replaced or diminished by sanitized modern perspectives. And that leads to a diluted version of history.

By emphasizing the importance of contemporary peer-reviewed research and established modern media, Wikipedia's process inherently narrows the scope of what is considered acceptable. The problem lies in the influence of contemporary bias. Present-day academic and media institutions often reflect current cultural and political ideologies.

If older detailed accounts—such as those from the Chicago Tribune or similar periodicals—are brushed aside, we lose a more authentic view of history. As academia and the media become increasingly reflective of prevailing ideologies, Wikipedia's heavy reliance on these sources creates a feedback loop that distorts history. Events and perspectives that don't conform to present-day viewpoints may be under-reported or erased altogether.

And that makes it very difficult for readers to gain a well-rounded understanding of the past. Wikipedia's emphasis on secondary and peer-reviewed sources devalues primary historical documents like newspapers, government archives, and eyewitness accounts. These documents offer a raw glimpse into how people experienced events, yet they're dismissed if they don't meet modern academic standards.

This practice compromises the integrity of historical documentation, neglecting vital records that capture the essence of a time period. By discounting publications that covered pivotal events or cultural phenomena, Wikipedia basically erases chapters of history. It erases people's memory. Stories that were reported in detail at the time will never see the light of day on Wikipedia if they lack modern academic corroboration.

This erasure is especially harmful to marginalized groups whose histories may never be revisited or validated by present-day researchers. Wikipedia's adherence to strict citation rules emphasizes procedure rather than the importance of information itself. And you know, like I do, information nowadays is more valuable than gold.

So even when historical sources are well documented and accurate, they will be excluded if they don't fit into Wikipedia's rigid framework. This procedural rigidity undermines the very purpose of an encyclopedia: to inform and educate based on the best available knowledge.

The platform's overzealous content deletion practices compound the problem. Valuable information is erased if it does not comply with the current standard for reliable sources. Consequently, Wikipedia’s potential to serve as a repository of human knowledge is hindered, as crucial details and historical facts are systematically stripped away.

As the memory of people are purged, by rejecting historically significant sources, Wikipedia contributes to a skewed representation of the past. The systematic exclusion of older but credible publications results in a version of history that's curated to fit nothing more than a contemporary academic preference rather than reflect the reality of what happened.

And this weakens the platform's credibility and erodes trust in its ability to present an unbiased account of human events.

This is all part of the reason why artificial intelligence is actually going to be a huge help to humanity. Our stories won't be held under the governor of Wikipedia. Your smart speaker won't be bound to the knowledge that's only available there.

And as time goes by and those sources are thrown to the side, Wikipedia is thrown to the side itself. It'll be more important to get those stories—those hyper-local, focused stories—out and stored somewhere. But where do they go? Do they live within AI's memory itself? Where does the compendium of the human condition and emotions live and reside?

Through our stories and oral histories, where they can't be erased by a change in cultural phenomena.

These Wikipedia policies are even more profound when considering non-Western and Indigenous histories. You see, many cultures have documented their past through oral tradition or non-standard forms of publication. And these invaluable records are overlooked. They're overlooked, they're not even considered under Wikipedia's restrictive citation rules.

And that reinforces a Western-centric, incomplete picture of world history, diminishing our understanding of the human experience, and putting it directly back into the classroom and the people that want to curate what history means—to them, to us. It's crazy.

Wikipedia citation policies which disqualify sources like the Chicago Tribune from 1973 highlight a significant flaw in its approach to knowledge curation. The exclusion of historically credible accounts in favor of modern academically approved sources undermines a comprehensive understanding of history.

This approach erases valuable narratives, perpetuates biases rooted in current ideologies, and contributes to the erosion of collective human knowledge. The rigid rules prioritize conformity over the truth, and then leave us with an encyclopedia that may fail to capture the richness and complexity of who we really are.

These are interesting things, with JC.

Student Worksheet

1. What is a primary historical source, and why might Wikipedia editors reject it?

2. Why does JC believe modern academic standards can erase older narratives?

3. What are some consequences of excluding older media reports from historical entries?

4. How do Wikipedia’s citation policies affect marginalized or non-Western histories?

5. Write a short paragraph: Should AI be responsible for preserving human stories outside Wikipedia?

Teacher Guide

Estimated Time:
1–2 class periods (45–60 minutes each)

Pre-Teaching Vocabulary Strategy:
Use a Frayer Model or visual concept map for "gatekeeping" and "primary source" to build foundational understanding.

Anticipated Misconceptions:

• Students may assume Wikipedia is a neutral platform.

• Learners might confuse “unreliable” with “false” rather than “not academically accepted.”

Discussion Prompts:

• Should encyclopedias prioritize historical accuracy or academic consensus?

• Can a non-academic source still be a reliable witness of history?

Differentiation Strategies:

• ESL: Provide side-by-side examples of accepted vs. rejected Wikipedia sources.

• IEP: Use sentence starters and scaffolding for analysis-based questions.

• Gifted: Debate the ethics of digital knowledge gatekeeping in a Socratic seminar format.

Extension Activities:

• Research and compare Wikipedia’s citation policy to that of Britannica or JSTOR.

• Create a digital archive using primary sources from a selected decade (e.g., 1970s).

Cross-Curricular Connections:

• Sociology: Systems of knowledge and institutional bias.

• Civics: Public access to information in democratic societies.

• Ethics: Role of AI in knowledge preservation.

Quiz

Q1. What is a reason Wikipedia might reject a 1973 Chicago Tribune article?
A. It was never published
B. It contains false information
C. It doesn’t meet current academic standards
D. It supports conspiracy theories
Answer: C

Q2. What type of source is a firsthand newspaper report?
A. Peer-reviewed source
B. Oral history
C. Secondary source
D. Primary source
Answer: D

Q3. What is one consequence of Wikipedia’s gatekeeping?
A. More diverse history
B. Increased AI accuracy
C. Exclusion of older credible narratives
D. More recent newspaper access
Answer: C

Q4. According to JC, what role might AI play in the future of history?
A. Replacing historians
B. Creating new events
C. Preserving excluded stories
D. Writing Wikipedia articles
Answer: C

Q5. Why is oral history often excluded from Wikipedia?
A. It is too expensive to archive
B. It is unverifiable under current rules
C. It is illegal in most countries
D. It is only used by Western cultures
Answer: B

Assessment

1. Why does JC argue that Wikipedia’s citation rules distort history? Provide examples from the episode.

2. Should encyclopedias prioritize modern peer-reviewed sources over original historical documents? Defend your answer.

3–2–1 Rubric

• 3: Accurate, complete, thoughtful analysis with direct episode references

• 2: Partial response with limited support or unclear examples

• 1: Vague, inaccurate, or lacking understanding of the topic

Standards Alignment

Common Core ELA (CCSS):

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.11-12.8
  Evaluate the reasoning in seminal texts, including the application of constitutional principles and use of legal reasoning.
  Applies to evaluating citation and gatekeeping principles on Wikipedia.

• CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.W.11-12.1
  Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.
  Used in student writing assessment on encyclopedia priorities.

C3 Framework for Social Studies:

• D2.His.1.9-12
  Evaluate how historical events and developments were shaped by unique circumstances of time and place.
  Supports understanding of why contemporaneous sources are important.

• D2.Civ.2.9-12
  Analyze the role of citizens in shaping public policy, including knowledge access.
  Relates to discussions on media access and public encyclopedia platforms.

ISTE Standards for Students:

• 1.3 Knowledge Constructor
  Students evaluate the accuracy, perspective, credibility, and relevance of information.
  Key to understanding editorial bias and source reliability.

International Equivalents:

• AQA A-Level Media Studies (Component 2)
  Explores media industries, regulation, and effects of platform gatekeeping.

• IB DP History (Paper 1 & 2):
  Source evaluation and historiography; understanding how history is constructed.

Show Notes

In Episode #1104 of Interesting Things with JC, host JC tackles the issue of knowledge curation and historical gatekeeping on Wikipedia. He explores how platform policies that prioritize modern academic publications often reject valuable contemporaneous accounts, like historical newspaper articles or oral histories. This results in the erasure of rich, diverse, and sometimes marginalized narratives. JC raises concerns about how this process distorts our understanding of the past and highlights the role AI could play in preserving excluded stories. This episode is deeply relevant for students studying media literacy, historical research methods, and civic knowledge in a digital age, challenging them to rethink what counts as "truth" in an encyclopedia.

References

• Ball, C. (2023). Defying easy categorization: Wikipedia as primary, secondary and tertiary resource. Insights: The UKSG Journal, 36(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1629/uksg.604

• Baigutanova, A., Saez-Trumper, D., Redi, M., Meeyoung, C., & Aragón, P. (2023). A comparative study of reference reliability in multiple language editions of Wikipedia. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00196

• Petroni, F., Broscheit, S., Piktus, A., Lewis, P., Izacard, G., Hosseini, L., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Lomeli, M., Schick, T., Mazaré, P.-E., Joulin, A., Grave, E., & Riedel, S. (2022). Improving Wikipedia verifiability with AI. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.06240

• Yang, P., & Colavizza, G. (2022). Polarization and reliability of news sources in Wikipedia. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.16065Kim, T. (2023).

• Controversies over historical revisionism in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the Wiki Workshop 2023. Retrieved from https://wikiworkshop.org/2023/papers/WikiWorkshop2023_paper_22.pdf

• Grabowski, J. (2023). Wikipedia’s intentional distortion of the history of the Holocaust. Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History, 29(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939

• Huq, N., & Ciampaglia, G. L. (2024). Survival of the notable: Gender asymmetry in Wikipedia collective deliberations. arXiv Preprint. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04340

• Jemielniak, D. (2019). Wikipedia: Why is the common knowledge resource still contested? First Monday, 24(5). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i5.9901