Silencing the East: Racialized Bias and Epistemic Injustice in Wikipedia’s Editorial Ecosystem

Abstract

Wikipedia is frequently recognized as the world's largest open-access encyclopedia and is often portrayed as a model of participatory knowledge production. However, this vision may obscure significant structural disparities and normative assumptions embedded within its editorial processes.

This paper examines the hypothesis that Wikipedia's editorial structures inadvertently marginalize contributors and perspectives from non-Western regions, particularly Asia. Through case studies focusing on India and China, the analysis considers how editorial norms, sourcing hierarchies, and the anonymity of editors can lead to forms of epistemic injustice¹.

Drawing from the theoretical frameworks of epistemic injustice¹, platform colonialism², and digital sovereignty³, the study evaluates content disputes involving figures and institutions such as Tuhin Sinha, Asian News International (ANI), and the Hindu Raksha Dal. It also considers opposing views that defend Wikipedia's sourcing policies as essential for maintaining factual reliability.

The paper concludes by proposing governance reforms aimed at enhancing transparency, accountability, and cultural pluralism within Wikipedia, while advocating for alternative epistemic infrastructures capable of supporting a more inclusive global knowledge order.

1. Introduction

Wikipedia remains the most frequently consulted reference source online, influencing how topics are encountered and interpreted by global audiences. Its open-editing model and decentralized governance have led to its reputation as a democratic knowledge platform.

This study interrogates that narrative by highlighting how Wikipedia's editorial processes may systematically disadvantage contributors and content originating from non-Western contexts. Our central argument is that existing editorial practices, including sourcing norms and consensus mechanisms, tend to prioritize Western epistemological standards while inadvertently marginalizing alternative knowledge systems.

To investigate this claim, the paper employs a qualitative case study approach that draws on talk page archives, edit histories, block logs, and dispute resolution records. The focus lies particularly on editorial outcomes concerning India and China—both of which generate significant knowledge inputs, yet remain subject to recurrent contestation on Wikipedia.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Epistemic Injustice

Miranda Fricker (2007) defines epistemic injustice¹ as the unfair treatment of individuals or groups in their capacity as knowers. Two forms are particularly relevant to Wikipedia:

• Testimonial injustice: when individuals are discredited due to prejudicial assumptions.
• Hermeneutical injustice: when systemic biases prevent certain communities from effectively interpreting or communicating their experiences.

Editorial gatekeeping on Wikipedia may result in both forms, especially where contributions challenge dominant historical or political narratives.

2.2 Platform Colonialism

Couldry and Mejias (2019) describe platform colonialism² as a condition wherein digital platforms, developed largely in the Global North, control data flows and interpretive authority across borders. Wikipedia’s policies and source hierarchies can reflect this form of asymmetrical power.

2.3 Digital Sovereignty

Digital sovereignty³ concerns the ability of states and communities to exercise control over their digital presence and representation. Wikipedia’s editorial processes, by emphasizing global consensus over local legitimacy, may conflict with national or regional epistemic autonomy.

3. Methodology

This paper adopts a qualitative multi-method approach combining documentary analysis, case studies, and triangulation of public records. The following data sources were utilized:

• Archived talk pages and editor discussions
• Revision histories and block logs
• Administrative actions and Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) rulings
• External reporting and academic commentary

Triangulation was performed by cross-verifying each case study through at least two independent sources, including off-platform documentation (e.g., media articles, public statements), and on-platform data (e.g., diffs, logs).

4. Structural Biases in Wikipedia – Evidence from Literature

Scholarly analyses have documented demographic and epistemic biases within Wikipedia. Studies show that its contributor base is disproportionately male, white, and based in the Global North⁴. This has led to uneven representation of topics, particularly in relation to geography, language, and cultural frameworks⁵.

Moreover, Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines tend to elevate institutional Western media and academic publications, often excluding non-English, vernacular, or grassroots sources. While intended to safeguard accuracy, this hierarchy can marginalize contextually valid knowledge forms⁶.

5. Case Studies from Asia: China and India

This section outlines editorial disputes that highlight potential patterns of epistemic marginalization in Wikipedia's editorial practices. It focuses on representative cases from China and India.

Note: Claims presented are based on documented talk pages, user discussions, and administrative logs. Some supporting documents originate from advocacy sources and are presented in the appendix with appropriate disclaimers.

5.1 China – Content Disputes and Editorial Exclusion

China’s interactions with Wikipedia have often been shaped by mutual skepticism. Chinese editors who attempt to revise content related to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Tibet, or the Chinese Communist Party frequently encounter allegations of biased editing or coordination. In 2021, a group of Chinese-speaking editors was indefinitely banned for alleged “disruption,” despite contesting the neutrality of articles involving regional politics⁷⁸.

Wikimedia Foundation representatives cited the need to prevent state-sponsored editing, but the adjudication process was managed predominantly by English-speaking administrators with limited knowledge of Chinese political or linguistic nuances. Appeals were handled internally, without recourse to neutral third-party oversight.

5.2 Tuhin Sinha – Notability Challenges and Content Disputes

Tuhin Sinha, a political commentator and BJP-affiliated Member of Parliament, has faced repeated scrutiny regarding the notability and content of his Wikipedia biography. Although he maintains a public presence as a published author and media figure, multiple deletion discussions have questioned his inclusion, often citing inconsistent application of notability standards.

Edits to his page have removed citations and downplayed professional accomplishments. Talk page exchanges suggest skepticism about ideological affiliations, raising concerns about editorial neutrality.

5.3 Asian News International (ANI) – Source Reliability Designation

ANI, a prominent Indian news agency, has been widely tagged as "unreliable" on Wikipedia. This categorization, made through consensus discussions, resulted in broad removal of ANI citations, particularly on politically sensitive topics. ANI’s complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation went unanswered, and their appeals for reconsideration of reliability designations were not addressed by editorial mechanisms⁹.

5.4 Hindu Raksha Dal (HRD) – Administrative Blocking and Redress Challenges

The Hindu Raksha Dal, a Delhi-based cultural organization, experienced multiple account blocks, which they claim were enacted without procedural clarity. The group submitted grievances under Wikipedia’s Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC), but received no formal response.

Allegations include impersonation and selective enforcement of platform rules. Supplementary materials provided by HRD, included in the appendix, suggest a perception of editorial bias and the breakdown of redress mechanisms.

6. Synthesis and Implications

These cases suggest recurring structural patterns:

• Policies regarding notability and reliability appear to be applied inconsistently across ideological and regional contexts.
• Editorial anonymity may hinder accountability, particularly when decisions affect marginalized or contested narratives.
• Formal grievance channels may be underdeveloped for addressing cross-cultural or transnational editorial conflicts.

7. Colonial Epistemology and Proceduralism

7.1 Epistemic Filters and Sourcing Norms

The privileging of Western institutional sources under Wikipedia’s reliable source policy can unintentionally perpetuate forms of epistemic exclusion. Indigenous knowledge systems, vernacular sources, and oral traditions often fall outside of these recognized categories.

7.2 Anonymity and Structural Asymmetry

While editor anonymity protects individual privacy, it can also obscure patterns of ideological enforcement. Editorial discussions involving India and China frequently reveal divergences in epistemic assumptions, yet consensus is typically defined by majority participation from Western-based editors.

7.3 Linguistic Framing and Naming Conventions

Decisions regarding naming—such as "Bombay" vs. "Mumbai" or "Ganges" vs. "Ganga"—are often settled through community consensus based on "common usage" rather than local preference. These naming practices may reproduce colonial terminology under the logic of editorial stability, disregarding indigenous naming conventions and cultural significance.

7.4 Procedural Overload and Bureaucratic Insulation

Wikipedia’s governance relies on procedural formalism, including dispute resolution boards, sockpuppet investigations, and layered policy structures. While these mechanisms are designed for fairness, they may inadvertently reproduce hierarchies by overburdening new or culturally distinct editors with opaque systems.

8. Conclusion

Wikipedia’s ambition to democratize knowledge is complicated by systemic imbalances in representation, source validation, and editorial power. The platform's current governance model may lack sufficient safeguards against epistemic marginalization, particularly in relation to non-Western contexts.

Reform initiatives should prioritize procedural transparency, regional representation, and expanded source recognition to enhance epistemic inclusivity. Additionally, alternative platforms rooted in cultural pluralism may provide complementary pathways for global knowledge production.

Appendices

Caution: The following documents originate from advocacy groups and non-academic sources. They are included for contextual understanding only and should be interpreted critically. Independent verification is advised.

Appendix A: Hindu Raksha Dal Public Notice (Dec 2024)

“Our principals assert that User#3 acted in bad faith, as an agent of the Wikimedia Foundation, due to a history of WMF's conflict with our principals.”

Source: WhatsApp University

Appendix B: Follow-Up Email to UCoC Enforcement Committee

“Because our client did not receive any reply from Wikimedia Foundation, it evinces strong suspicion that this entire 'Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee' is fictitious...”

Source: WhatsApp University

Appendix C: Government Memorandum on Hindu Samaj Complaint

“The complaint has been processed in F. No. 104/52/2023-AVD-IA (pt.5)...”

Source: Hindu News Stream

References