MUMBAI: In the digital age, Wikipedia has emerged as one of the most frequently accessed sources of information globally, with over 1.5 billion monthly visitors relying on its content for knowledge across countless topics. The platform’s founding principle of neutrality and openness has created an illusion of democratic knowledge production. However, growing evidence suggests that Wikipedia suffers from systemic biases that disproportionately affect content related to India, Hindu traditions, and policies promoted by right-wing parties. These biases manifest in ways that marginalize Indian perspectives, distort religious representations, and frame political discourse through a specific ideological lens.
This article examines the structural vulnerabilities within Wikipedia that enable these biases, documents specific instances where content appears skewed, and analyzes how these patterns affect public understanding of Indian culture and politics. Through a comprehensive review of academic research, leaked internal documents, and specific article analyses, this inquiry reveals how Wikipedia’s open-edit model creates opportunities for ideological manipulation that undermine its claims to neutrality.
STRUCTURAL VULNERABILITIES FUELLING BIAS
* Volunteer-Driven Model Creates Ideological Skew: Wikipedia’s reliance on a volunteer editor base creates inherent vulnerabilities to ideological bias. Research indicates that approximately 84% of Wikipedia editors identify as male, and 70% come from Western countries, creating demographic imbalances that affect content creation and moderation . This demographic skew becomes particularly problematic when editors from Western backgrounds attempt to cover non-Western topics like Hinduism or Indian politics, often through the lens of their own cultural frameworks rather than local perspectives.
Studies have shown that editors with progressive Western perspectives often dominate debates about culturally sensitive topics. For example, discussions about Hindu religious practices frequently center around Western feminist or secular critiques rather than incorporating viewpoints from Hindu practitioners themselves. This creates a situation where content about Hinduism may emphasize aspects like caste systems or gender inequalities while minimizing its philosophical depth or cultural significance to Indian society.
The volunteer model also creates power imbalances, as those with more technical expertise in Wikipedia’s editing protocols can disproportionately influence content. This technical barrier to entry further entrenches existing biases, as new editors from diverse backgrounds often face hostility or dismissal when attempting to contribute alternative perspectives.
* Administrative Bias and Confirmation Bias: Research by Levush (2016) has documented systemic confirmation bias among Wikipedia administrators, particularly in disputes related to politically sensitive topics. Administrators, who hold significant power to shape content through deletion, protection, and arbitration, often exhibit ideological preferences that favor Western liberal values while marginalizing perspectives from Indian right-wing contributors.
This administrative bias is exacerbated by Wikipedia’s arbitration policies, which have been criticized for disproportionately penalizing edits perceived as “nationalist” or “reactionary.” For example, editors attempting to add context about India’s sovereignty in border disputes may find their contributions labeled as “biased” or “nationalist propaganda,” while similar assertions about Western military interventions receive more favorable treatment.
The arbitration committee’s composition further reinforces these biases, as administrators with specific ideological leanings can effectively silence alternative viewpoints through bureaucratic means. This creates an environment where certain perspectives become systematically suppressed, regardless of their factual basis or relevance to the topic at hand.
DOCUMENTED INSTANCES OF BIASES
* Hindupobic Representation in Religious Content: Wikipedia’s coverage of Hinduism exhibits several patterns that could be interpreted as Hindupobic or at minimum highly critical. Articles on Hindu rituals and temple architecture often emphasize controversial or marginalized traditions while minimizing their mainstream cultural significance. For example, the page for “Hindu temple architecture” has been criticized for focusing excessively on alleged connections to sexuality and eroticism, with extensive sections dedicated to “erotic sculptures” while providing minimal coverage of the philosophical and spiritual significance of temple design .
Comparatively, articles about other religious practices receive more neutral treatment, with less emphasis on potentially controversial aspects. This selective focus creates an impression that Hinduism is inherently more problematic or sexually charged than other religious traditions.
Efforts to contextualize or critique colonial-era interpretations of Hindu texts are frequently censored as “nationalist” bias. For instance, attempts to add information about the distortions introduced by 19th-century Orientalist scholars like Max Müller have been rejected by editors who claim such content constitutes “original research” or “apologetics.” Meanwhile, critiques of Abrahamic religious texts face less scrutiny, with scholars noting that Wikipedia’s coverage of other religions maintains a more balanced approach that acknowledges both historical criticisms and theological depth.
* Anti-Indian Nationalism in Sovereignty Discussions: Wikipedia articles discussing Indian sovereignty issues often frame New Delhi’s actions as imperialistic or authoritarian, contrasting sharply with how similar Western actions are portrayed. For example, coverage of the Kashmir conflict frequently portrays Indian government policies as oppressive occupation, while similar articles about Western military interventions (such as those in Iraq or Afghanistan) avoid such charged language.
The page for “India-Pakistan relations” has been criticized for its imbalance, with extensive sections detailing alleged human rights abuses by Indian forces in Kashmir but minimal coverage of cross-border terrorism or Pakistani sponsorship of militant groups. This asymmetry creates a narrative where Indian sovereignty claims appear aggressive while Pakistani positions are presented as defensive.
Similarly, discussions about India’s border disputes with China often emphasize alleged Indian expansionism, with the term “Chinese incursions” rarely used despite documented Chinese military movements into Indian territory. This linguistic choice mirrors patterns seen in Western media coverage, where Indian actions are framed more critically than comparable actions by Western nations.
* Marginalization of Right-Wing Policy Arguments: Policies promoted by India’s governing right-wing party face systematic marginalization on Wikipedia. The repeal of Article 370, which removed special status for Kashmir, is predominantly framed as an authoritarian power grab rather than a constitutional amendment aimed at national integration. The article includes extensive criticism from international organizations and opposition parties but provides minimal space for legal analyses supporting the government’s position.
The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) receives similarly one-sided treatment, with the article focusing almost exclusively on protests and allegations of religious discrimination. Alternative viewpoints that contextualize the CAA within India’s humanitarian obligations to persecuted religious minorities in neighboring countries are either minimized or omitted entirely.
Coverage of the farmers’ protests against agricultural reforms has been particularly contentious. The Wikipedia entry predominantly cites sources like *The Wire* and BBC, which emphasize farmer grievances and alleged government repression, while omitting counterarguments from pro-reform economists who argue the reforms could modernize India’s agricultural sector. Editors who attempted to add balanced perspectives were labeled as promoting “WP:FRINGE” content despite the reforms having mainstream support within India.
CASE STUDIES OF CONTENT CENSORSHIP
* Farmers’ Protest Coverage: The Wikipedia entry on the 2020-2021 farmers’ protests in India exemplifies how the platform’s editorial processes can suppress alternative viewpoints. The article consistently frames the protests as a grassroots movement against authoritarian government policies, with extensive coverage of protest tactics and alleged police brutality
One editor argued that such additions constituted “original research” despite citing published academic papers, while another claimed they violated Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” policy by presenting “government propaganda.” This selective application of neutrality standards effectively marginalized perspectives that challenged the dominant narrative of the protests as universally opposed by farmers.
* Cow Protection Laws: Wikipedia’s coverage of India’s cow protection laws illustrates another pattern of bias. The article frames these policies as “Hindutva aggression,” with extensive sections on alleged violence against minority communities and minimal discussion of the religious significance of cow protection in Hinduism. Citations supporting the laws are largely excluded, despite the existence of Hindu religious texts that frame cow welfare as *dharma* (duty) rather than mere political opportunism.
Editors who attempted to add balanced perspectives faced accusations of promoting “Hindu nationalist ideology.” One contributor who cited scholarly works on the cultural significance of cows in Hinduism had their edits reverted with the comment that such content was “apologetics for animal cruelty laws.” This approach effectively silences religious justifications while amplifying criticisms of the policies as politically motivated.
* Historical Figure Representation: Wikipedia’s treatment of Indian historical figures also reveals bias. The page for Subhas Chandra Bose, an Indian nationalist leader who sought independence from British rule, has been criticized for labeling his activities as “collaboration with Axis powers” while minimizing the context of India’s struggle against colonialism. In contrast, Western resistance figures like the French Maquis receive more sympathetic coverage despite similar tactical alliances during World War II.
Similarly, the article for Raja Ram Mohan Roy, considered the father of Indian modernization, emphasizes his critiques of Hindu practices while downplaying his contributions to Indian nationalism and educational reform. This selective focus creates a narrative where Indian historical figures are primarily judged by Western standards rather than evaluated within their own cultural and historical contexts.
CONCLUSION
Wikipedia’s bias issues highlight broader challenges in pluralistic knowledge platforms: open collaboration often amplifies dominant ideologies rather than reflecting global diversity. While systemic changes are needed to curb Hindupobic, anti-Indian, and anti-right-wing editorial preferences, immediate reforms—such as diversifying the editor base and revising neutrality standards—are critical.
The platform must address its structural vulnerabilities by implementing mechanisms that prevent ideological capture of content. This could include:
* More stringent verification of sources for contentious subjects
* Including experts in content review processes
* Expanding the administrator pool to include diverse ideological perspectives
* Revising arbitration policies to prevent disproportionate penalization of certain viewpoints
* Developing culturally sensitive guidelines for covering non-Western topics
Until these reforms are implemented, readers should approach Wikipedia content with critical awareness of these underlying issues, particularly when researching topics related to India, Hinduism, or Indian politics. Wikipedia cannot be fully trusted as a neutral source of truth until it addresses its structural flaws and implements mechanisms to ensure more balanced representation of diverse perspectives.
* Brijesh Singh is a senior IPS officer and an author, his latest book is “The Cloud Chariot” (Penguin). Views are personal.