1 Introduction

Wikipedia has become ubiquitous; for most people, it is the initial port of call for information on such a wide array of topics as the subject of religion, yet a few would question the objectivity of the site, particularity for such delicate and entangled topics as religion. This article is in the series “Wikipedia Religious UnReliable Sources.” It looks at the practice of using reliable-source policies in regard to Buddhist topics at Wikipedia to see if these policies are being gamed, biased, or selectively used by administrators and editors. In response to the article “Reliable Sources: How Wikipedia Admin David Gerard Launders His Grudges Into the Public Record,” the following analysis hopes to discern how some of Wikipedia’s editorial practices might be molding the narrative of Buddhism. Though this study focuses on specific cases, general trends, and larger issues in religious discourse, the analysis that follows takes up an exposition of the reliability of Wikipedia as a source of knowledge regarding Buddhism.

2.1 Overview of Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources Policies

Verifiability is also an important area in Wikipedia’s editorial policy. What it holds under the policy is that every piece of information must be verifiable by way of it being published by reliable sources. Reliable sources are those published with professional fact-checking and editorial processes, such as academic journals, well-regarded newspapers, or book publishers (Steinberg, 2020). What is presumed to be a “reliable source” may come across as quite subjective—sometimes in matters of religion or ethics, where there are always conflicting interpretations and opposing beliefs. The reliability of the information on Wikipedia is ascertained through a complications-driven process of discussions among the editors and administrators (Avieson, 2022). The theory holds that, by such a process, only high-quality, objective sources should be used. In practice, however, such a system could be biased or influenced by the biases of several parties in the discussions. As illustrated in the case of Wikipedia administrator David Gerard, people with very strong biases can then wield much influence over what is considered a reliable source and can easily move the representation of a topic into a balanced perspective.

2.2 Buddhism on Wikipedia: Source Credibility

Reliable sources and their treatment thus deliver some interesting trends in regard to Buddhism. It is a major world religion with a history that’s rich, variegated, and subject to all sorts of disputes and conflicting interpretations (Obadia, 2020). The application of the policy on reliable sources at Wikipedia captures this plurality or ends up privileging some over others and marginalizes others in the final analysis.

A scrutiny of the Wikipedia articles on Buddhism indicates an overall tendency toward input from academic sources, specifically, those sources steeped in Western scholarship. These sources, while in many ways invaluable and resourceful, present only one perspective, which only partially encompasses the entirety of what is experienced by Buddhists worldwide in their lives and their spiritual practice (Histen, 2024). For example, those studies might be centered mainly on the historical and doctrinal background of Buddhism, downplaying the importance of current practices and interpretations in different cultural contexts. Also, this view is limited due to a bias in the sources being based on writing in English. This further limits the view and, in some ways, disfigures it into a Western construct of Buddhism (Redfern, 2010). It is not actually an intended bias but one that is caused by the nature of the availability and access of sources. The bias comes from the skewed representation of Buddhism, which often does not correctly reflect the reality of the diversity of the religion from around the world.

2.3 Case Studies: Controversial Edits and Source Disputes

It is also helpful to look at specific case studies while trying to comprehend precisely how Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources are applied when it comes to Buddhist-themed pages. A great example of one such case study is the page for the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism (Histen, 2024). The Dalai Lama is a high-ranking figure and one who is also likeable to and distrusted by various factions in Chinese politics. Articles on Wikipedia about the Dalai Lama most commonly need revising due to disagreements about sources, many of which are constantly being edited.

This often involves some editors making calls to include sources that are critical of the Dalai Lama, which people argue come from nothing but articles published in Chinese government publications or state-controlled media. Other editors counter that such sources are biased and cannot be considered reliable (Bingenheimer, 2021). The result is a continuing tug-of-war about how the Dalai Lama is represented on Wikipedia, with competing factions trying to control the narrative.

Another instance is that of coverage for the Buddhist practices within Southeast Asia. Articles related to Theravada Buddhism, which is considered the major religious form within nations like Thailand and Myanmar, are geared more and more towards the relevance of sources that make provision for discourses on modern social concerns (Obadia, 2020). An example is the controversy over the sources, which includes discourses about the role of Buddhism in national identity and politics.

While some editors suppose that sources that point out this darker side of the faith are required for a fuller, more comprehensive view of Buddhism in specific regions, the contrasting opinion comes into play where some editors feel these sources take away the spirituality and the doctrine base of the religion (Kalyanasundaram, 2022). In these vignettes, one can see how Wikipedia’s policy on reliable sources can be cut both ways. On the one hand, it aims for information to be included in articles to be accurate and verifiable; on the other hand, that very policy can be used to promote specific views at the expense of others, particularly where reporting and interpretation are elided.

2.4 Impact on Public Understanding of Buddhism

Ways in which Buddhism is represented on Wikipedia have greater repercussions for public understanding of the religion. To so many, Wikipedia is a source of evidence for information. The framing of topics can shape perceptions (Histen, 2024). If articles about Buddhism on Wikipedia are incomplete or prejudiced, there will be a distorted view of the religion.

This allows one of the major pitfalls of working with a select few sources only: the reinforcement of stereotypes or misunderstanding (Nieuważny et al., 2020). For example, if Wikipedia overly emphasized the cultural and monastic aspects of Buddhism while marginalizing lay practices, readers would be left with the general idea that Buddhism is a monk’s religion, quite contrary to how things actually are with the living tradition, actively followed by millions of ordinary people.

In turn, selective enforcement of this policy can leave out voices within the Buddhist community. For instance, a modern Buddhist teacher or lay member who is not publishing in an academic venue but is an active and highly regarded member of their community might not be included in Wikipedia (Bingenheimer, 2021). This could offer a homogenized view of Buddhism that does not reflect the diversity and dynamism of the religion.

2.5 Wider Ramifications for Religious Discourse in the Digital Era

Equally significant, the problems that Wikipedia presents in its coverage of Buddhism are far from isolated to that religion. Instead, in the coverage of other religions, particular perspectives are favored while others are marginalized. Greater ramifications concern religious discourse in the digital age.

Long into the future, Wikipedia will not be surpassed as a source of information upon which the shaping of religious topics will depend (Histen, 2024). If the policies and practices that govern this platform result in biased or incomplete representations of religion, then this might add to a growing trend of misinformation or misunderstanding.

Further, with all editorial powers vested in a few individuals or groups, the democratization of knowledge is called into question. Wikipedia’s model of open editing cannot ensure that “anyone” shall contribute because its policies on reliable sources have formed barriers to entry hitherto excluded by academic and mainstream media outlets. This can limit the diversity of perspectives represented on the platform, particularly in the area of religion, where alternative perspectives are often found in non-traditional sources (Kalyanasundaram, 2022). The implications of Wikipedia’s politics for religious discourse extend beyond the site to the larger topography of digital religious pedagogy and interfaith exchange. As the numbers using the Internet as a source for knowledge about religions grows, so too does the importance of the biases and limitations in Wikipedia’s articles as shapers of public understanding and opinion on a variety of religious traditions (Redfern, 2010). This could have far-reaching implications for interfaith relations, religious literacy, and the ability of individuals to engage in meaningful discussions about the spiritual and philosophical.

The danger of misrepresentation or oversimplification of somewhat subtle religious perspectives on Wikipedia and other widely available resources runs the risk of supporting stereotypes, misunderstandings, and at its worst, conflict between religious groups (Histen, 2024). This also implies depending on sources of information about non-Western religious traditions, scholars and literature from the Western academy (Steinberg, 2020). Such dependence can be a boon to obsolete colonialist narratives and power structures. It might have serious and unprecedented implications on the religious studies’ decolonizing effort and furthering the goal of knowledge based on authentic global spirituality.

More importantly, however, the issues of religious topic coverage that Wikipedia experiences are a microcosm of a much larger problem that plagues the digital era: the democratization of information and its discontents. To be sure, whereas the democratization of information that the Internet has engendered has enabled more information to find wider and wider audiences, such democracy simultaneously flattened traditional notions of expertise (Obadia, 2020). In some ways, that tension is greater in religious discourse than elsewhere because religious knowledge can take both academic study and lived experience. Wikipedia policies that insist on published academic sources are biased toward one form of knowledge and, in so doing, tend to rule out other valuable insights from practitioners, spiritual leaders, and, indeed, indigenous knowledge holders (Bingenheimer, 2021). This raises questions regarding how we define expertise in religious issues and whose voices are counted as authoritative with respect to the digital. Working our way through these challenges will require us to craft new models for online religious discourse that balance our need for better information with the need to include both traditional wisdom and diverse perspectives.

2.6 Future Directions: Recommendations for Wikipedia and by Wikipedia to Users

Given the problems thus identified, how could this be done better in future to ensure a more reliable and fair article on Wikipedia with regard to Buddhism or other religions? This could be one way in which the definition of a reliable source can be expanded to have a more expansive definition with regard to the inclusion of perspectives with religiosity-oriented views. This will be instrumental in ensuring that Wikipedia articles are a true reflection of the breadth of religious experiences and their interpretations (Nieuważny et al., 2020). Second, more transparency in the editing process could be beneficial. While Wikipedia has mechanisms for tracking edits and discussing disputes, these processes are too opaque to the casual user. Increasing transparency could stimulate trust in the platform and have readers better understand how articles are being built and by whom. Finally, Wikipedia users must approach the website with critical minds (Kalyanasundaram, 2022). Even if it is a precious tool, Wikipedia should not be considered the definitive source on any subject, but particularly on matters that are undoubtedly multilayered and concerning, like religious experience. Wikipedia users are invited to inform themselves as much as possible about other sources and to keep in mind the sometimes very real possibility of the incompleteness and biasing of Wikipedia material.

3 Conclusion

Wikipedia’s engagement with Buddhism shows that applying a one-size-fits-all reliable sources policy to complex religious subjects is fraught with problems. Although neutrality and accuracy are aimed for, the analysis makes it quite clear that underpinning the presentation of Buddhism are certain biases and imbalances. The preference for Western academic sources gives a certain, perhaps reassuring, level of scholarship with regard to traditional Buddhist perspectives that have been marginalized. The observable sectarian imbalances and difficulty with controversial subjects, as noted above, testify to the complexity of the truly comprehensive and neutral coverage of Buddhism. These findings of the above analysis, therefore, call for a more multilayered approach to sourcing and presenting information on Buddhism in Wikipedia: more efforts towards diversified perspectives, traditional sources, and cultural contexts might seriously generalize the platform’s coverage of Buddhism. This would also raise the awareness of editors and administrators that they may be biased due to certain activities of source selection and thus help them balance and complete their articles. Ultimately, while Wikipedia is generally a good source of information on Buddhism, one should approach it with a critical eye, recognizing what may be limitations and partialities in the presentation. Indeed, for a fuller understanding of Buddhism, one should consult a range of sources other than Wikipedia, with traditional texts from a range of academic perspectives and from a range of Buddhist traditions themselves.