With every second that passes, Wikipedia generates another 2 500 views. By the time you finish reading this article, it will have generated half a million views.
As the seventh most-visited site globally, the digital encyclopedia website holds extraordinary power. Evans et al. write that 98% of undergraduate students report using Wikipedia at some point during their research process (p. 198). In addition, Wikipedia has the authority to decide what information is published, which perspectives are platformed, and which are excluded.
Siân Evans, Jacqueline Mabey, Michael Mandiberg's essay "Editing for Equality" discusses the growth of the Art + Feminism movement in championing more equitable and representative articles published on Wikipedia. They advocate for gendered information activism on the web.
Within this context, I argue that we must think critically about the perspectives that the public is consuming on Wikipedia. In bell hooks' essay "Theory as Liberatory Practice," she says that theory and knowledge are fast becoming commodities only the privileged can afford in this capitalist culture (p. 9). Beyond advocating for accessibility, the work of information activists in the Art + Feminism movement requires careful consideration of historically marginalized and excluded groups from feminist movements.
What does it mean to be accessible?
On the surface, as a public domain, Wikipedia ostensibly seems highly accessible. Unlike most academic publications, Wikipedia is open access and characteristically written in easy-to-understand language. The gatekeeping of scholarly journals is exclusionary (for BIPOC, womxn, LGBTQ+, etc.). bell hooks refers to this as an "intellectual class hierarchy" where "…the only work deemed truly theoretical is work that is highly abstract jargonistic, difficult to read, and [contains] many obscure references that may not be at all clear or explained" (4).
She says that "theoretical language" is "used to set up unnecessary and competing hierarchies of thought which reinscribe the politics of domination by designating some work inferior, superior, worthy of attention" (p. 4).
Wikipedia combats this by championing a public domain of accessible and editable knowledge. In addition, Wikipedia has launched projects that focus specifically on increasing accessibility for users with disabilities. In theory, this sounds optimal, right? Regardless of what ability, experiences, or academic credentials they have, shouldn't everyone have the ability to contribute and edit Wikipedia's entries?
Who is left behind?
The answer is no. Wikipedia can never be completely accessible, representative, or equitable. Who has the power to edit and create Wikipedia pages? Who decides which articles get published and which don't? Who made the decision not to publish a Wikipedia entry on structural feminism? …Those who have access to the internet? Those who can read and write English? If Wikipedia boasts its open-access features, why are only 10% of editors women? The idea that knowledge is commodified means that knowledge production will always act as an extension of exclusion, as bell hooks describes.
In this sense, I argue that it is critical for the Art + Feminism movement to contextualize their activism to include thought and theory produced by historically marginalized groups within feminist movements. The Art + Feminism movement must acknowledge the intersectional (the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination intersect in the experiences of marginalized individuals (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)) identities of womxn. The failure to do so will render this activism exclusionary and insufficient for marginalized womxn.
The de-legitimization and appropriation of work created by marginalized womxn is a far-reaching pattern that goes back centuries. Specifically, in the context of race and class elitism, bell hooks says that:
"The academic production of feminist theory formulated in hierarchal settings often enables women, particularly white women, with high status and visibility to draw upon the works of feminist scholars who may have less or no status, less or no visibility, without giving recognition to these sources" (p. 3)
The failure to include and consider the needs of all womxn means that their perspectives will continue to be appropriated and de-legitimized at the benefit of white feminism. Further, in a study conducted by WikiEdu, they found that 89% of Wikipedia's editors are white. As Sian et al. describe, there is a lack of gendered information activism on the web. But this activism cannot exist to solely benefit heterosexual, cisgender, wealthy, white women. The Art + Feminism movement must contextualize the work of marginalized womxn to include trans women, non-binary people, BIPOC, etc. The failure to do so means that information about marginalized womxn will be sparse, misrepresented, and eventually erased from history. Broadly speaking, the work of modern feminism must recognize and distinguish between the experiences of all women as individuals.
I understand the importance of championing access and representation for women within the context of digital activism. One step forward is still one step ahead, right?
However, I can't help but wonder, how can this activism truly be effective and inclusive if we fail to consider the needs of all womxn?