Steven Davison on how Wikipedia describes Quakers—and how we might respond.
This raises a concern for me about how the Quaker movement might oversee this kind of public presentation of our faith and practice going forward. In the spirit of Wikipedia’s platform as a peer-to-peer project, and in keeping with the non-hierarchical governance structures so important to Friends, and, of course, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I propose a peer-to-peer process for the oversight of such presentations, a long-range project of review that would hopefully include Friends with real expertise in the many areas of Quaker history, faith, and practice covered in this entry and whatever other entries we find
This relates to a long-term concern of mine that so much of the most public information on Friends isn’t created by us. Wikipedia’s relatively benign (there’s actually a bit of a Quaker process connection) but our participation on social media like Facebook and Twitter are mediated by algorithms favoring controversy. I edit Wikipedia entries a couple of times a year but am also a small part of Friends Journal efforts to built out Quaker.org to make it a useful, accurate, and publicly visible introduction to the Religious Society of Friends.
There’s some good discussion on Mastodon by some Wikipedia editors who explain that Davison’s plan would be seen with some suspicion by Wikipedia. As commenter Dan York wrote:
Wikipedia has a very strong ethos around “conflict of interest” with the sense that people too close to a topic can’t write in a neutral point-of-view. There’s definitely value in folks working to improve the pages, but they need to keep these views in mind — and back up everything they do with reliable sources.