User:Martindittus/One page fact sheet

About this draft
This is a one-page fact sheet that helps Wikipedians to better understand knowledge equity. We primarily want to collect evidence that helps illustrate why knowledge equity matters, making an empirical case that current forms of support are insufficient. We also want to point towards some potential directions forward.

This page is a challenging one to write. On one hand, it is hard to talk about processes of marginalisation without simplifying and stereotyping the underlying issues; to describe the issues in a language that is widely understood and yet respectful of marginalised communities. Further, there is insufficient research of the many contextual factors behind global online participation inequalities. As a result, while we strive to provide empirical evidence for any major claims made on this page, we may need to draw from anecdotal examples to illustrate some of our arguments.

How you can help:
 * review/improve the overall flow,
 * fill in some of the missing sections, turn placeholders into paragraphs,
 * add additional elements if you think anything is missing,
 * conversely, make suggestions for things that we could take out, in the interest of focus,
 * help promote this page to others who have knowledge to contribute. (We can promote the document more widely once it's a bit more evolved.)

What is knowledge equity?
The first prominent mention of the term "knowledge equity" is in Wikipedia's movement strategy document from 2017, where it is described but never defined. The term was subsequently adopted in the 2018-2019 Wikimedia annual plan. These documents outline the Wikipedia community's aspiration to address multiple intersecting issues:
 * To include knowledge and communities that have been left out by structures of power and privilege
 * To reduce or eliminate the gender gap in the Wikipedia movement
 * To fairly distribute resources relating to products and programs
 * To set up structures and governance practices that rely on the equitable participation of people across the Wikipedia movement
 * To extend the Wikimedia presence globally, with a special focus on under-served communities, like indigenous peoples of industrialized nations, and regions of the world such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America

Why should Wikipedians care about knowledge equity?
The Wikipedia community believe that this new strategic position is a necessary prerequisite to fulfil Wikipedia's mission of capturing the sum of all human knowledge. Wikipedians now recognise that many people and communities around the world are currently prevented from contributing their knowledge, despite their best efforts.

On this page, we present empirical evidence that it is not enough to simply allow everyone equal access to the contribution process. Instead, it is also necessary to counteract the diverse effects of past and current marginalisation and oppression. We further recognise that many of our existing policies and procedures are informed by European and North American language culture, and may pose unexpected barriers to people from other cultures.

Unequal participation & representation
First let's recognise the immense global imbalance on Wikipedia, both in terms of participation (who in the world contributes) and representation (which parts of the world are being represented.)
 * [map: global editors]
 * [map: global retention rates... difficulty retaining editors in AF, cf Katherine Maher's Wikimania talk]
 * [map: global geotagged content]
 * [associated studies]
 * [% edits from African editors]

We can see that different global regions participate differently.

To exacerbate this even further: content of marginalised communities is often written by outsiders.
 * [link to info magnetism study]
 * [name some specific examples: NA/EU writing much of the content for the rest of the world]
 * [show new map: % local edits (check with Mark first)]

The resulting knowledge gaps
What are the knowledge gaps?
 * (broad summary, informed by the studies above)
 * Mark in the Guardian 2009: Wikipedia's known unknowns https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2009/dec/02/wikipedia-known-unknowns-geotagging-knowledge
 * NYT 2011: Wikipedia now as white and male as the encycploedias it replaced. (Christel: ref?)

Drivers of knowledge inequity
We are only starting to understand the drivers of these inequalities, but we already know that they are complex and multi-faceted, and often related to historic differences. But we know enough that we can say this is not merely the result of certain communities making different choices: to a significant degree this is the result of systemic barriers to participation. In other words, Wikipedia's contribution process is currently not just unequal, but inequitable: many communities are excluded from participating, and are prevented from making choices about how they are being represented online.

The following section outlines many of the known drivers behind this inequity, and can give you an impression of the degrees of complexity involved.

Technical barriers

 * technical infrastructure barriers
 * connectivity
 * show studies and maps of global connectivity: e.g. cost of broadband vs average wage; % pop online
 * include at least one of them! (are they in Commons?)
 * show studies of the participation effects of connectivity

Local knowledge infrastructure

 * barriers relating to local knowledge infrastructure
 * local knowledge/media infrastructure
 * show the study (there may be more)
 * a common problem when trying to demonstrate notability: no English sources for local issues
 * reduced access to embeddable content: e.g. Commons media files not findable in your native language

Social and policy barriers

 * social and policy barriers specific to Wikipedia
 * Halfaker paper of slowing growth: maturity means it's harder for newcomers; this makes it much more challenging to establish new language communities
 * (lots of studies, start with Aaron's work)
 * the dominant influence of established/mature WPs (enwiki, dewiki, others)
 * policies often informed by enwiki
 * editing experience often formed in enwiki
 * content migration from enwiki
 * in other words, established WPs inform policies of more recent WPs -- yet the cultural context may be entirely different
 * the risk: an implicit bias towards European and North American language culture
 * (examples? studies?)
 * also a lack of local admins for many global regions
 * a common occurrence: reversions of local content by non-local admins based on insufficient understanding of the local context
 * as a result, a need for "double consciousness" when navigating Wikipedia bureaucracy
 * contributors to smaller WPs often need to become familiar with conventions of the foreign language culture as well as their own
 * (examples?)
 * double consciousness among marginalised communities: always having to see yourself through the eyes of the majority group, as well as your own
 * as a consequence of all these factors, the contribution process is often more challenging for marginalised groups -- and much less enjoyable. (link to WP and enjoyment)
 * lack of local support
 * e.g. local chapters: less access to local funding
 * compare: how expensive is it to run a local meetup, compared to average salary?

The encyclopaedic form

 * inherent limitations of the encyclopaedic form
 * encyclopedia: a European concept?
 * focus on written history, vs oral histories, social forms of knowledge
 * expectation of openness: WP does not allow for sacred knowledge to be withheld from the public eye (cf. anthropology capture)
 * economic barriers to participation
 * many are struggling to lift themselves out of poverty. We should not expect them to contribute knowledge for free that took a lifetime to build
 * in Wikimania 2018 "Africa's Wikipedians" panel it emerged that this is a big challenge to African wikis
 * link to our Wired article, other discussions on editor payment

Other societal barriers

 * further societal barriers
 * this all happens in the context of existing social injustices that many of us are facing every day: in its injustices, Wikipedia is also simply a reflection of the world
 * systemic marginalisation and oppression across genders, ethnicities, social classes, and other dimensions of difference
 * tech culture has a history of emphasising interests of the white male
 * harrassment and other forms of violence against individuals from marginalised groups
 * historic exclusion from positions of power and influence
 * war and other forms of conflict
 * colonial histories resulting in current systemic disadvantages, but also driving a careful scepticism by the formerly colonised about Western extractivism and its direct and indirect costs
 * (some examples of studies, specifically relating to WP and online participation)
 * e.g. gender achievement gap in maths is driven by social factors, not biology https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2009/06/01/gender-gap-in-maths-driven-by-social-factors-not-biological-differences/
 * the human psychology of systemic bias
 * e.g. some basic social psychology findings around group behaviours
 * studies how this affects decision-making, e.g. in hiring/promotions etc?

How to foster knowledge equity?
After reviewing this evidence, Wikipedians we have come to the conclusion that the current affordances and support structures are not enough. There are many systemic layers of exclusion that prevent many global communities from participating in Wikipedia, and from having their perspectives represented on Wikipedia and other online platforms. Addressing this inequity is a formidable challenge. But now that we've started identifying some of the causes we can start developing strategies to address them.

Some guiding principles

 * remember: we're trying to articulate a global articulation of human knowledge that has never existed before in human history. There is no clear roadmap. As a result we need to reflect on our values and visions as much as we need to consider the tactical steps of getting there.
 * KE articulates a set of values and aspirations, rather than a specific process; there are many avenues to get there
 * need to acknowledge: unlikely to find a perfectly fair outcome: it's often a negotiated trade-off between interested parties (e.g. which groups should we support with grant X? which policies do we want to interpret more or less strictly?)
 * also important to recognise the increased burden placed on marginalised communities: to not only experience these inequities, but then have to become an advocate and explain these injustices which they have not caused
 * ask yourself: does a strict interpretation of our policies always serve our collective interest? For example, is it always necessary to satisfy all norms when introducing new content that fills a knowledge gap?

How to provide effective support?
How can we provide effective support for underrepresented groups?


 * (broad strategies, informed by the studies above)
 * policy opportunities
 * fostering [pluriversal] approaches to arbitration and decision-making
 * should WP recognise geography/territory as a concept in its governance?
 * for example to foster a local capacity to help resolve admin disputes around contentious local issues
 * and find other ways to increase regional equity in decision-making, admin/bureaucracy participation
 * this is of course highly entangled with questions of political culture, vested interests, etc
 * everyday practice
 * in your interactions, make a habit of listening rather than speaking, and to give space to people who are less often heard
 * in your writing, de-emphasise the most prominent examples, and instead use every opportunity to show stories from the fringes
 * contact new editors and offer friendly guidance: small gestures of support can make a big difference
 * consider: is WP always the right platform? (link to other approaches, e.g. some YT project to capture oral knowledge)

Existing initiatives
There already are many existing initiatives you can join:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProjects_relevant_for_countering_systemic_bias
 * funding models
 * Wikipedian in Residence
 * infrastructure projects
 * structured data: making Wikipedia Commons files more easily findable across many different languages https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program/Structured_Data_on_Wikimedia_Commons_and_knowledge_equity

We're encountering some challenging questions along the way
 * link to Wired article: should Wikipedia start paying editors from marginalised communities in order to address inequities driven by economic circumstances?

We can further learn from a rich history of social movements
 * https://wikimania2018.wikimedia.org/wiki/Program/What_can_we_learn_from_the_Feminist_movement_for_knowledge_equity%3F

Focused on Wikipedia
In early 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation's research team published three strategic whitepapers that outline potential directions for action in three key areas: knowledge gaps, knowledge integrity, and foundations (support structures).

Related areas
Reports that are not specifically focused on Wikipedia:
 * https://internethealthreport.org/2018/