The JK Rowling Wikipedia article has been embroiled in a heated debate over the last month regarding its representation of her political views. Despite having a separate article solely dedicated to her politics, many editors still believe that the main biography article, which covers Rowling’s life and career, should include more of her views going as far as labelling Rowling an ‘anti-trans activist’. The debate has seen some 50 editors take to the article Talk Page debating sourcing, POV (point-of-view) pushing and balance, with some citing Wikipedia is ‘Not the News’. Failing to uphold this policy would mean articles fall into a phenomenon called ‘recentism’ where disproportionate balance is given to breaking news reports and controversy, blurring the lines between up-to-date encyclopedic information and sensationalism. Currently, Rowling’s article is not the only page at risk of such trends.
Around the time of Scotland’s enactment of the new Hate Crime and Public Order Act, there was a notable surge in page views on Rowling’s Wikipedia page – a common occurrence online when a prominent figure is in the news. Rowling, the author of the best-selling series in history, has a featured article on Wikipedia, meaning it is deemed one of the best articles on the platform for accuracy, neutrality, and completeness. Except, with headlines featuring Rowling’s controversial Twitter posts and several complaints lodged against the author, this featured article status has come into question with several editors stating that Rowling’s politics are becoming more notable than her career highlights warranting an overhaul of her main biography page.
In its current form, Rowling’s biography article has a Transgender views section of 464 words. In addition, there is an entirely separate Wikipedia article on Rowling’s political views including another section on her views on Transgender rights amounting to approximately 2,400 words. As a comparison, Encyclopedia Britannica has a 94-word paragraph with minimal detail about Rowling’s transgender views in only one short biographical article. When asking Meta’s AI bot about JK Rowling, no mention is made of her transgender views and the source used is entirely Rowling’s website. It seems that Wikipedia has taken the lead in documenting all news reports and articles on Rowling’s political views, with every mention drawing more and more editors to her page. Invoking Jimmy Wales on the subject, the quote, ‘we are not tabloid journalism’ comes to mind.
This seems to be the trend on several other biographical articles created for the sake of documenting news and controversy. Robert Malone and Jay Bhattacharya, two scientists that criticised Covid lockdowns and the safety of vaccines, both had pages created during the pandemic stating that they spread misinformation and conspiracy theories. It’s as if no other issue brought them to notable prominence enough to be documented on the world’s number one, free encyclopedia. The articles read as if these were hit pieces created for the sole purpose of documenting criticism with the knowledge that readers would trust Wikipedia’s view, especially as Wikipedia collaborated with the World Health Organisation.
Much of the free information available on Wikipedia has succumbed to such sensationalist news and recentism. More and more editors take on particular causes that they proudly display on their user pages using current events and sources to promote that cause. This political display of user boxes – a decorative box that displays a slogan about the user – are said to help editors collaborate on Wikipedia projects and articles, yet their increasing popularity subtly undermines the platform’s commitment to objectivity. One editor states they are a ‘proud commie bastard’ whilst others state they are socially progressive or support Antifa. The importance of declaring one’s opinion has its place, it is another matter when editors become cemented in edit wars that threaten to turn Wikipedia into opinion-driven activism.
Such activism in the tech industry, often disguised as promoting inclusivity, fairness, and ethics, has become a common trend among Silicon Valley giants. Under the guise of ‘Responsible AI’, these companies have programmed algorithms to prioritise diversity and inclusion, sometimes at the expense of neutrality and accuracy. Similarly, Wikipedia has been pressured to conform, banning editors who display heteronormative or socially conservative views on their user pages. Encouragingly, only a minority (18 out of 51) of editors on JK Rowling’s page have displayed such personal biases. So far, the consensus has been to avoid labelling Rowling or expanding her biography to align with activist agendas, recognising that such actions would be premature and unnecessary. One can only hope that this approach extends to other biographical articles on Wikipedia, lest the platform risk alienating its users.
