Wikipedia is not True

Wikipedia, often described as "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit," stands as one of the most influential knowledge projects in human history. It is widely used as a first point of reference, a cultural touchstone, and a seemingly neutral repository of facts. Yet beneath its ideals of neutrality and verifiability lies a profound epistemological issue: Wikipedia does not record truth—it records what sources say is true.

Verifiability, Not Truth

Wikipedia's core content policy, "verifiability", not truth, enshrines this distinction. Information can be included only if it is published in a reliable source. In practice, this means that the encyclopedia reflects the consensus of reputable media, academic journals, and institutional publications. These sources, however, are themselves products of particular cultural, political, and intellectual contexts. They shape and are shaped by the worldview of their time.

Consequently, Wikipedia's articles are not timeless statements about reality but living records of how a given society understands reality at a given moment. This makes Wikipedia a mirror of consensus, not an oracle of truth.

The Historical Counterfactual

Consider a thought experiment. Suppose Wikipedia had existed in England in the year 1300. Following its current editorial standards, the article on Jews would have drawn from contemporary chronicles, church decrees, and royal edicts—all steeped in medieval antisemitism. Those were the "reliable sources" of that world. The resulting article, judged by modern standards, would be morally abhorrent and factually false. Yet it would have fully complied with Wikipedia's rules of verifiability and neutrality as then understood.

This thought experiment underscores how deeply knowledge systems are entangled with power and perspective. What counts as a "reliable source" is determined by the institutions that dominate discourse in their time. When those institutions are unjust, so too will be the narratives derived from them.

The Epistemology of Consensus

Wikipedia's editors strive for neutrality through consensus. However, consensus is not the same as objectivity. It is a social process, often shaped by the dominant linguistic communities, cultural assumptions, and political realities of the contributors and the sources they rely on. Wikipedia's reliance on secondary sources—rather than direct evidence—further ensures that it inherits the biases of its reference ecosystem.

The result is a self-consistent epistemic circle: Wikipedia defines reliability by external consensus, and then enforces that consensus internally. It produces a remarkably stable and self-correcting knowledge base—but one that ultimately reflects the worldview of its age.

The Strength and the Risk

This structure is both Wikipedia's greatest strength and its greatest vulnerability. It ensures that the encyclopedia remains grounded in verifiable, published material rather than personal belief or conspiracy. At the same time, it prevents Wikipedia from challenging systemic distortions until mainstream institutions do. The encyclopedia evolves, but it cannot lead moral or intellectual revolutions—it can only follow them.

Mirror of the Times

Wikipedia is a mirror, not a compass. It shows us what we, as a civilization, have come to agree upon as true—nothing more and nothing less. To read Wikipedia wisely is to understand that it reflects the light and the shadows of its time. Its articles will one day be judged as we now judge the writings of the past: as documents of what people once believed was knowledge.