When we think of collaboration on the internet, Wikipedia is often hailed as a model of open access. But in my experience, the reality is more complicated. This week’s video dives into how I’ve navigated Wikipedia’s editing system. It includes times I watched well-sourced, accurate content get removed or flagged simply because it didn’t meet someone else’s interpretation of “notability.”
In one case, I supported a startup that had been featured in Forbes and TechCrunch. Despite this press, our Wikipedia draft was repeatedly challenged and ultimately deleted. Experiences like this have taught me that Wikipedia, though built on collaboration, isn’t truly accessible to all. The editing process favors those already in the circle of trust, with time, experience, and perceived legitimacy on their side.
In the video, I also reflect on examples from class like Philip Roth’s open letter to Wikipedia and research on social media paradoxes, which helped me see that open collaboration isn’t always equitable.
Filming this project gave me a new appreciation for how media, whether written or visual, reflects who holds power. It also made me more critical of what gets left out of the digital record, and who gets to decide.
Thanks for watching, and I’d love to hear about your own experiences navigating digital spaces.
