What you get on Wikipedia depends on which version you use Special

A talk with the President of French Wikimedia gives insight into how Wikipedia content can vary depending on which version you use. Staff levels and backgrounds, cultural issues and attitudes toward privacy rights and the press also play a role.

“You got that from Wikipedia!? I wouldn’t trust Wikipedia with the truth any more than I would trust the government with my money.” We’ve all heard that kind of thing before of course, and I too have been known to rage against the Wikipedia machine and what I have variously suspected to be blatant bias, a lack of objectivity and the deliberate omission of embarrassing information, particularly when it concerns big companies, the government and well-known personalities. That has been particularly true of Wikipedia’s French version, which I use daily both in order to satisfy my curiosity on something (I am an incurable downtime Wikisurfer) and to research subjects for my work. In fact I got so annoyed at the blatant differences between the French and English versions that I began to look at French entries with a very critical eye. I realized before long that my jaundiced view was turning into an obsession, so I decided to do something about it and confront French Wikipedia with my questions and accusations in order to get things off my chest. Adrienne Alix says she has a stack of work on her desk and hundreds of emails to deal with. She is the President of Wikimedia France and she agreed to answer my questions during what turned out to be a long telephone conversation even though “I just got back from my holidays today and I’m up to my neck in work.” We begin by taking a look at the size and organization of French Wikipedia, which is the third-biggest version after English and German. With a total of 900,000 entries it is much smaller than the English version and its almost 3.5 million entires. “The fact that so many people speak English is the key factor here of course” she says, adding that the French version has around 1000 regular contributors out of a total of around 14,000. “This is proportionately less than the English version, which helps explain why English articles can be more detailed than their French counterparts, although our articles on uniquely French-related subjects are generally longer.” Alix says that French Wikipedia is consulted primarily by the French, but many users are also to be found in Quebec, Belgium and those African countries which have had strong relations with France over the years. Moving on to how French Wikipedia is organized and its deontological approach, she informs me that “We are organized in exactly the same way as the English version in terms of how articles are put together and by whom. The more sensitive subjects are dealt with by our more experienced contributors, and we adhere to the same principles concerning article neutrality and verifying information. We don’t translate English articles into French because we want our references to be in French. That means that content is automatically presented in a different way. But there is absolutely no sentiment of competition between the different versions as far as French Wikipedia and its staff is concerned.” Content and neutrality. Those are exactly what I wanted to discuss so I use an example to show what I mean, that of Ségolène Royal, the losing candidate in the last French presidential elections in 2007 and a highly mediatized and controversial personality. I have noticed over the years that French Wikipedia articles on almost all prominent French politicians do not include certain embarrassing or controversial information about them that can be found on the English versions. This is an almost systematic occurrence. So how does she explain the fact that the English entry on Ségolène Royal includes much information relative to her private life and acrimonious separation from her companion, various political and media scandals, and the fact that she is widely rumored to have withheld information on her wealth from the tax authorities. Almost none of that information is in the French article. Surely that’s a flagrant example of people in her entourage ‘cleaning up’ her French page to improve her image? “No, not really. This has to do with several issues, most notably the long-standing tradition here in France not to over-publicize details of politicians’ private lives and families in the press and elsewhere out of respect for their right to privacy. Moreover, laws on this are often stricter here than elsewhere and politicians and others would waste no time in taking French Wikipedia to court, or threatening to, if they consider that their privacy is being invaded according to the law.” OK, but surely no-one can be prosecuted for publishing information that has already appeared on every front page in the country, such as her alleged tax fiddling? “That’s a different phenomenon. Unlike the English version, we do not consider that we need to reflect what the press is writing about in our articles. It’s not just because the press alleges something that we feel obliged to include it. The question is ‘Is it pertinent.’ You have to ask yourself whether you’re an encyclopedia or a sounding-board for press speculation. That’s how we see things, although there is of course a large and ongoing debate about how far we should go on this.” Big business interests and the possibility of interference and manipulation of articles on major companies are also one of my worries. I have in mind articles about Airbus, its planes, and the fact that English versions of articles on them often include less flattering aspects of Airbus’ business practices which don’t appear on French Wikipedia. “Are you kidding? Haven’t you ever read the entries on Boeing? It’s pretty much the same thing.” Does she mean that all’s fair in love and war and that everyone’s doing it? “Yes, but again, this is a cultural thing. My opinion is that although I agree that our articles on French politicians and other personalities do not include some of what is in the English versions, I get the impression that when it comes to articles on companies, Anglo-Saxon companies are far more likely to intervene on articles to give them better spin than they are in France. You can see that in the article discussion pages, where it is not rare for computers with IP’s which are suspected of being linked to companies to be used to modify content.” French Wikipedia contributors’ backgrounds also mean that there are differences. “Many of those who do articles on companies are academics who have spent a lot of time at university and they don’t know as much about the business world as seems to be the case for English article contributors, who may be more business-oriented.” Alix adds a few words on the Scientology entries and the fact that France hasn’t had to deal with the kind of manipulation of its article that led to the English version being closed to further editing. She is of the opinion that because English Wikipedia attracts so many more readers it is bound to attract more mischief-makers and thus false entries. We change the subject, moving on to less contentious but just as obvious differences. I put it to her that French Wikipedia articles on showbiz people as well as writers, painters and artists and their creations in general “read like rosy and romantic novels of their lives and careers which were written in their honor by die-hard fans.” She laughs and exclaims “Yes they are, aren’t they?” in an amused tone. The example I choose is Serge Gainsbourg, the French singer/songwriter who died in 1991. The English article on him states matter-of-factly that “Gainsbourg died on March 2, 1991 of a heart attack. He was buried in...” The French version says, almost touchingly, that “Gainsbourg passed away following his fifth heart attack (what an irony for he who had sadly attended the funerals of his successive cardiologists.)” “I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry” I said “But it sure is romanticized.” I add that it’s the same for everyone from Led Zeppelin to Michelangelo. And, of course, there is hardly a whiff of scandalous or contentious issues, as usual. “I’ve seen that so often!” she replies. “This can be explained by the backgrounds of the contributors who write those entries, many of whom are enthusiastic female fans. They tend to write more with their hearts than with their heads, but there isn’t any manipulation going on. I try to correct articles like that as I come across them, but there are so many of them that it’s impossible to correct them all. That phenomenon is even more marked in articles on things like small towns and villages. You see stuff like ‘If you turn left at the bakers’ shop, you go down this really pretty road…” We somehow get onto the subject of criticism of Wikipedia. I mention my personal impression that knee-jerk criticism concerning accuracy and bias seems to have died down a little in the English-speaking world, and I wonder how things are in France in that respect. She says that the situation is similar and that although there was lots of criticism regarding reliability a few years ago, that has slowly disappeared to the point that “Even the French press now links to sources in French Wikipedia, but not enough in my view.” "Even" the French press? I remind her that the French press is notorious for not linking to sources in general, never mind Wikipedia, compared to what you’d see in England or the United States. “Agreed, but it’s also down to the fact that French journalists and intellectuals tend to look down their noses at us. It’s unpleasant, but what can you do? That said, many cultural institutions such as museums and institutions in general are beginning to realize how much we can help them to get exposure, particularly for photos. Our photo archives are increasing in size extremely quickly in terms of cultural content.” My last question was “Are you confident in the future of Wikipedia in France?” Her three-word answer was immediate and emphatic. “Yes. Very confident.” And she sounded like she meant it. Irrespective of any personal points of view that one may have regarding French Wikipedia’s way of doing things, talking with Adrienne Alix left me asking questions about just what the words ‘objectivity’, ‘accuracy’, ‘bias’ and ‘neutrality’ can mean in the context of Wikipedia. French Wikipedia gives me the impression that their work is influenced by French cultural traditions that have existed for centuries. Comparing it to English Wikipedia thus becomes a perilous exercise, because the same unavoidable influences have had an impact on that version too. Is the French version ‘better’ or ‘worse’ than its English counterpart? ‘Is it ‘more’ or ‘less’ neutral and professional? Those are questions that probably need the kind of sociological and cultural analysis that would require a book to discuss. One thing seems certain though, and that’s that, love it or hate it, Wikipedia in any language is above all the result of human endeavor, with all its inevitable strengths and weaknesses.