When the public approaches Wikipedia it is with a caution usually reserved for miracles: two parts amazement, one part suspicion. It seems unbelievable that such a comprehensive and remarkably well-written collection of encyclopedia entries could have originated from the frenzied throes of anarchic crowd-editing. Yet as much as we are beseeched to not rely on Wikipedia as an authoritative source of information, it is unquestionably the default go-to for almost all non-critical fact-searching. This is because the face it presents is one of pedantic, certainly inoffensive neutrality. We are assured by its prominent signs signaling the potential bias of certain articles and the often-encountered “citation needed” that Wikipedia is humble, well-intentioned, and self-qualifying. Its trustworthiness is engendered due to this seeming transparency; we are told frankly what might be wrong, what needs to be fixed, and assured through the virtue of its open-editing policy that everything will be done in a fair and egalitarian way.

Unfortunately, this pretense is charming but ultimately untrue. In theory, Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. In practice, the aspiring contributor is likely to find their first article or even edits swiftly removed by much more seasoned veterans. Sometimes this is because of mistakes made due to inexperience. Other times the reasons are less tenable – the edits may have gone against the oldtimer’s vision for that particular article or drawn ire through any number of other ways. Both the result and the cause of this intense scrutiny of newcomers is an exclusive and self-regulating class of elite editors who are too prolific to ban but are often irascible, heavily opinionated, and wildly uncivil. Combined with Wikipedia’s emphasis on the “consensus,” which amounts essentially to a staring contest where the last person to make an edit or argument that is not reversed or countered wins, this has led to a great number of passionate and heated debates over trivia and minutiae. While such battles provide fine entertainment for the onlooker, they can prove to be frustrating for those involved, and a source of disenchantment for those who find themselves being attacked with technicalities by the more experienced, who then go on to ignore the very same rules themselves.

Even more distressing is the wide gender gap that exists within the editor community. The precise estimates vary; however, the general consensus is that the ratio of males to females hovers somewhere close to 9:1. This manifests itself passively as a systemic neglect of women of historical and cultural importance and more actively as cases where the biographies of female artists and authors are written with undue emphasis on their relationships with famous male icons. More damning evidence of a gender bias occasionally pops up. The gradual relocation of women novelists from a page entitled “American novelists” to one called “American women novelists” sparked controversy in 2013. Just recently, five feminist editors who had been embroiled in arguments concerning the bias of the Gamergate controversy page were banned from editing any gender-related articles by ArbComm, the highest judiciary committee of the Wikipedia system. The creation of a Gender Gap Task Force to counter the extant power imbalance and to encourage the participation of more women editors has not stopped the occurrence of events such as the ones detailed above.

Consider that Wikipedia is one of the most accessible and reasonably thorough repositories of human knowledge and you will see why this is a cause for great concern. The community of authors of this compendium would fit snugly into Habermas’ description of the bourgeois public sphere, shortcomings and all. At the cost of a truly invaluable resource and reference open to public contribution comes an atmosphere of exclusion and the marginalization of a substantial segment of the population. Entry into the ranks of editors requires the willingness to face rejection and undergo extensive training, as well as running the risk that your voice might still then be drowned out by the majority or by those more persistent. With the community supported and encompassed by the platform itself, the possibility of subaltern counterpublics existing to represent views not expressed by the majority is doubtful. Pressure for change might then only come from two sources: the gradual inclusion of women within the ranks of editors and public outcry against the administrators of the organization itself. Wikipedia as it currently exists undoubtedly enriches the world – but does so in a way far from what it professes to be.