1 Introduction

We believe that organised skeptic groups are actively targeting Wikipedia articles that promote natural, non-drug therapies with which they disagree. […] The new trick of these editors is to rewrite or entirely remove pertinent information from such articles or, worse still, delete entire articles altogether [Alliance for Natural Health, 2018 ].

Wikipedia currently is the area in which dogmatic skeptics are most successful and influential. […] The situation is particularly bad in any areas to do with parapsychology, alternative and complementary medicine, and on the biography pages of scientists involved in investigating these areas [Sceptical about Skeptics, n.d. ].

These are examples of claims that members of the Skeptics movement are unfairlyinfluencing information on Wikipedia. However, those making these claims often have acommitment to the views allegedly being targeted — for example, support for naturaltherapies — so it might be that they are the ones who are biased. Independentlysubstantiating their claims is difficult because Wikipedia is collectively produced and mostof its editors are anonymous. This leads to the question of how the influence onWikipedia of a particular group or movement — in this case Skeptics — can bedetermined.

The Skeptics movement is composed of a number of groups and networks tiedtogether by publications — such as The Skeptic — and a common cause. Though callingthemselves Skeptics (always spelled with a “k” even in countries where the standardspelling is “sceptics”), their scepticism is applied asymmetrically, always against beliefscontrary to scientific and medical orthodoxy and, and their efforts are invariably againstgroups espousing those beliefs. The campaigning and rhetoric coming from Skeptics isoften-times more vehement than anything regularly expressed by scientists in themainstream. Most scientists get on with their work and pay little attention to viewsoutside the scientific community. Skeptics, in contrast, have adopted the role of orthodoxyenforcers. Rather than ignoring those outside the mainstream, they seek to denigrate anddiscredit them.

Gieryn [ 1983 ; 1995 ; 1999 ] developed the concept of “boundary work,” which refers tothe activities of individuals and groups to expand or maintain a boundary between scienceand non-science. As Gieryn [ 1999 , p. xii] puts it, “Representations of science — where it is,and where it is not — have less to do with the cultural realities they supposedlydepict, and more to do with the cultural realities they sustain.” Much of thiswork is rhetorical: by talking about bodies of knowledge in particular ways, theyare granted a specified status. In this way of thinking, what counts as scienceresults from agreement by a sufficient number of people that it should be calledscience.

Most of Gieryn’s case studies, for example concerning cold fusion, phrenology,composting and the science wars, involve efforts by individuals and groups inside thescientific community to police boundaries. In contrast, a considerable proportion of thoseinvolved in the Skeptics movement are not working scientists. They undertake thepolicing of science’s boundaries and the assertion of what counts as science from a position outside the formal scientific community. Wikipedia is a domain outside of science;parts of it are about science. It is an intriguing arena for struggles over definingscience carried out using rules quite different from those used within the scientificcommunity.

This article is an attempt to make an initial and limited examination of how todetermine the influence of Skeptics on Wikipedia. Some aspects of this analysis might alsobe applied to the study of Wikipedia bias in other areas, such as politics.

The next section provides a brief introduction to scepticism and the Skepticsmovement. Following this is an introduction to Wikipedia. Then comes an analysis ofseveral Wikipedia entries.

2 Scepticism and the Skeptics movement

Robert Merton, a prominent sociologist, studied the dynamics of science. In awell-known formulation [Merton, 1973 ], he proposed that the scientific ethos ischaracterised by four norms: universalism, communism (referring to commonownership), disinterestedness and organised scepticism. Whether Merton had anyempirical basis for postulating these norms is debateable, but undoubtedly theyhave served a powerful rhetorical or ideological function. In particular, scientistshave long thought of themselves as sceptics. In the rise of science in Europe,early scientists were confronted by the power of the Church, which asserted itsauthority over beliefs in a range of domains. Scepticism is commonly contrastedwith dogmatism, with dogmatism linked to beliefs asserted by (non-scientific)authorities.

Later social analysts questioned whether Merton’s norms actually described thepractice of science [Barnes and Dolby, 1970 ; Mulkay, 1976 ]. Ian Mitroff [ 1974 ] carried out astudy of moon scientists and concluded that a series of “counter-norms” were justas important as Merton’s norms. The counter-norm to organised scepticism is,according to Mitroff, “organised dogmatism.” This might be interpreted as suggestingthat science has become a new church [Horrobin, 1969 ]. It is compatible withThomas Kuhn’s [Kuhn, 1963 ] observations about the necessary role of dogma inscience.

Despite the critical analyses of Merton’s norms, many scientists see themselves assceptics, and certainly not as dogmatists. Furthermore, in much public commentary,scientists have managed to adopt the mantle of being sceptics. In some parts of theworld, this remains a contrast with the dogmatism or blind faith associated withreligion.

Scientists, according to Merton, are supposed to be sceptical about their own theories,or about all theories. This can be linked to the philosophy of Karl Popper [ 1972 ], whoargued that science is distinguished from ideology by being able to be falsified. Scientists have taken this on board, with some of them seeing their own approach asseeking to falsify theories [Mulkay and Gilbert, 1981 ]. Sociologists who havestudied science have argued that, in practice, scientists do not follow Popper’sprinciple, instead retaining theories even though experimental results conflict withthem.

Those who call themselves Skeptics have adopted a label associated with science butturned it in a different direction. Rather than being scientists who are sceptical of theirown theories and results, or trying to falsify their own theories, Skeptics turn theirattention to the ideas of others, in particular those who challenge orthodox views withinscience. Skeptics thus might be considered to have appropriated the rhetoric of scepticismfor a crusade against heterodoxy. Rather than following some version of the scientificmethod, Skeptics have adopted a set of boundary-work techniques and unilaterally takenover enforcement.

Researchers in the field of science and technology studies have made in-depth analysesof the ways that scientific knowledge is created and legitimated, the discourse of scientists,and the psychology of scientists, among many other topics. A few have looked at Skeptics,for example Collins and Pinch [ 1982 , pp. 41–46] who commented on the “scientificvigilantes” who sought to discredit research on parapsychology. Within science andtechnology studies, by far the most detailed analysis of the Skeptics is David Hess’s book Science in the New Age , in which he examines New Agers, parapsychologistsand Skeptics anthropologically, in the context of US culture. According to Hess,each of these three groups sees itself as pure and the other groups as “greedy,materialistic, egocentric, and sometimes disorderly and pathological” [Hess, 1993 , p. 68].The Skeptics see themselves as the underdogs in seeking to counter popularopinion and a mass media that panders to it for commercial reasons. Hess observedthat the Skeptics used a confrontational, even aggressive approach, one withaffinities to masculinity. In undertaking his analysis, Hess expanded the concept ofboundary-work, seeing it as pervasive, used against other groups to reject their claims toknowledge and authority, and used within groups between factions with differentperspectives.

Since Hess’s sophisticated cultural studies analysis there has been relatively littlesociological examination of the Skeptics movement. In addition, the advent ofthe Internet has opened new domains for struggles between Skeptics and theiropponents.

Skeptics organisations in several countries are brought together by magazines, onlinegroups (since the 1990s) and face-to-face meetings, including conferences. The mostprominent is the US-based Skeptics Society, which produces a glossy magazine, TheSkeptic , with regular columnists and major articles, holds an annual conference and otherevents. The Skeptics Society describes itself as an “educational organization thatpromotes science literacy and critical thinking, and investigates fringe science andparanormal claims.” The topics addressed in The Skeptic give a good sense of thefavourite targets for Skeptics, which include religion, intelligent design, homeopathy,therapeutic touch, post-truth and postmodernism, UFOs, flat earthers and conspiracytheories. The Skeptic is somewhat open to debate, giving space to some of thetargets of its critical attention, for example those who believe in the existence ofGod.

Michael Shermer, the publisher and editor-in-chief of The Skeptic , is the mostprominent figure in the Skeptics Society. In his 1997 book Why Do People BelieveWeird Things? he tackles all sorts of “fringe” beliefs, including the paranormal,near-death experiences, alien abductions, witch crazes (including recovered memorysyndrome) and Ayn Rand, with special attention to creationism and Holocaustdenial.

The Skeptics movement is held together by a common set of assumptions about theworld and their place in it. Skeptics assume they have access to the truth (even if itis hypothetically provisional), which is almost always based in scientific andmedical orthodoxy, and that those who have different beliefs about core issuesare wrong and need to be educated or countered. These assumptions come tothe fore in Skeptics explanations for heterodox beliefs, which they attribute topsychological shortcomings, as in the title of Shermer’s book Why Do People Believe WeirdThings?

Most scientists focus on their own research projects that are built on the standardset of assumptions about knowledge and research methods. Quite a number ofscientists, with appropriate credentials and publications, have challenged dominantparadigms in physics, most commonly relativity and quantum theory, but fewmainstream scientists pay any attention to them or their ideas [Campanario and Martin, 2004 ]. A common complaint from these dissident physics researchers is that noone knowledgeable is willing to scrutinise their ideas. If mainstream scientistsdo not bother to examine dissident views presented by those who follow therules of the game — writing in conventional scientific style and publishing inscientific journals — then it is not surprising that mainstream scientists haveeven less time for alternative views that are seen as fringe. For example, fewastronomers pay any attention to astrology, even to the studies that are carried outquantitatively, much less to star-sign evaluations published in the mass media. So it mightbe wondered, is there any need to attack astrology, to label it pseudoscience,and expose its flaws? This role has been adopted by the Skeptics on their owninitiative. There is no evidence that astronomers, concerned that astrologers have toomuch credibility, have ever called on Skeptics to mount a campaign on theirbehalf.

Those with Skeptics sensibilities who work in science can engage in the usual sorts ofboundary work, for example seeking to prevent publication of suspect articles and denyresearch grants to deviant projects. However, those working in other careers cannot policescience boundaries from the inside.

Furthermore, to pursue their agenda, many supporters of the Skeptics have adisadvantage: they have no special expertise for making their claims. A few are publishedscientists, but a science degree and even a career as a scientist do not offer special expertisefor challenging the claims of parapsychologists, homeopaths or faith healers. Somemembers of the Skeptics may have a background in science or medicine butwork in other fields. This may be the explanation for why Skeptics magazinesso seldom tout their own members’ domain-specific scholarly contributions.(In making these comments, I might be seen as engaging in my own boundarywork in relation to non-scientist members of the Skeptics community.) There is,though, one domain where those without topic expertise can exert influence:Wikipedia.

3 Wikipedia

Wikipedia is an online, open-access encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute[Jemielniak, 2014 ; Lih, 2009 ; Reagle Jr., 2010 ; Reagle and Koerner, 2020 ; Tkacz, 2015 ].Traditional encyclopedias are run by editors who invite specialists to write entries in theirareas of expertise; quality control is maintained by the editors and their selection ofcontributors. In Wikipedia, quality control is exerted by a collective process of correctionand discussion. Anyone can make a change to an entry, or add a new one, and everychange can be seen on the “History” tab. Usually there are several editors paying attentionto changes made to any given entry, and they may revert the changes or modify them.Under the “Talk” tab, it is possible to read comments, queries and debates concerning anentry.

The brilliant conception underlying Wikipedia is that a collective process ofcontribution and correction, all by volunteers, can lead to high-quality information. To aconsiderable degree, this conception has been vindicated. Studies have shown that theaccuracy of Wikipedia is not greatly different from traditional encyclopedias, andundoubtedly Wikipedia is far larger and more dynamic — being revised in the light ofnew information, including recent events — than any other encyclopedia. It has achieved ahigh profile: often, when searching the web, a Wikipedia entry will appear as one of thefirst few items suggested.

On Wikipedia, no particular expertise is required to make a change, in other words tobecome an editor. Furthermore, most editors are anonymous. The history of their edits isavailable and some editors offer a self-description, but in many cases their real-lifeidentities are not disclosed.

Contributions to Wikipedia are supposed to conform to a set of policies or rules,for example maintaining a neutral point of view (NPOV) and not relying onoriginal research (NOR). With NOR, claims are supposed to be backed by crediblesecondary sources. For example, rather than writing that Albert Einstein made apioneering contribution with his 1905 paper about special relativity, on Wikipedia it isnecessary to cite a reliable source (RS) saying that Einstein’s 1905 paper waspioneering. Experienced editors know how to write and maintain entries in ways thatcan be defended using Wikipedia rules. However, the plethora of rules createsconsiderable latitude for different interpretations justifying different decisions abouttexts.

Several features of Wikipedia make it susceptible to systematic bias. Experiencededitors can be promoted to be administrators, who have greater power. Skilled editorsare more familiar with the rules and can use them to counter changes they findunwelcome. When there are disagreements about entries and their content, groupswith common views and whose members are skilled and persistent can get theirway.

There have been a wide range of complaints about WP bias [Lovink and Tkacz, 2011 ; Oeberst et al., 2019 ; Sanger, 2020 ; Wikipediocracy, 2021 ]. Some criticshave observed that most editors are male and that there is bias against women[Ford and Wajcman, 2017 ; Paling, 2015 ]; others point to racial bias. There areallegations of political bias, against the left or the right [e.g., Adler, 2020 ]. Of interestfor the analysis here is bias against challenges to scientific orthodoxy, a chargemade by a number of critics [Rotter, 2020 ; Sheldrake, n.d. ; Ullman, 2014 ; Weiler, 2013 ].

Assessing claims about bias on Wikipedia is difficult in part because of the scale of theencyclopaedia, with millions of entries and versions in numerous languages. Assessingbias can be done on a statistical basis [Greenstein and Zhu, 2012 ; Greenstein and Zhu, 2018 ]. Another obstacle to assessment of bias is inconsistency between different parts ofWikipedia, and yet another is the changing content.

Here, no attempt will be made to assess the scale or seriousness of any Wikipedia biasagainst scientific heterodoxy. The focus will be on a few topics and a few methods, inorder to illustrate boundary work on Wikipedia that seems to reflect a Skepticssensibility.

For topics, I picked three areas that I have studied in some depth: fluoridation, theorigin of AIDS, and vaccination [e.g., Martin, 1991 ; Martin, 2010 ; Martin, 2018 ]. Havinganalysed the debates in these areas gives me a basis for assessing Wikipediatreatments. Wikipedia editors would probably say that, because of my studies, Iam not in a position to provide a neutral assessment. That would be to applyWikipedia rules. However, I am writing here as a social scientist, not as a Wikipediaeditor, so standards and conventions common in social science apply, whichmeans that demonstrated expertise is seen as an asset rather than a conflict ofinterest.

Among methods of boundary work that could be examined, I decided to look atlabelling. A common method used to relegate views or fields as “not science” is to refer tothem by a distinguishing label. One term often used is “pseudoscience,” which refers tofields that adopt the trappings of science without the substance. Another termused similarly is “denier,” which refers to someone who rejects dominant viewsand has no credibility for doing so, for example “climate science denier.” Theterm “denier” draws some of its semantic potency from the term “Holocaustdenier” used to refer to someone who disagrees with the consensus view thatmillions of Jews and others were systematically killed in Nazi Germany from1941–1945.

A term of special interest here is “conspiracy theory” [Dentith, 2018 ; Uscinski, 2018 ]. Defined simply, it refers to an explanation involving secret plotting, aconspiracy being a covert arrangement by two or more people to accomplishsomething. In this simple definition, the attacks on 11 September 2001 involveda conspiracy. The orthodox view is that 19 Muslim terrorists conspired to flyaeroplanes into major US buildings. A non-orthodox view is that members of the USgovernment were somehow implicated in the attacks. A different definition of“conspiracy theory” specifies that the label applies only to non-orthodox views. Thisdefinition has the problem that when an explanation moves from a marginal to adominant position, it no longer is called a conspiracy theory, even when its content isunchanged.

All three labels — pseudoscience, denier and conspiracy theory — are derogatory, atleast when applied by supporters of orthodoxy [Bjerg and Presskorn-Thygesen, 2016 ].Labelling using these terms is both a method of boundary work and a method ofdenigration. It is worth noting that it is possible to reside in the category of “not science”and to be valued; adherents to religions certainly think so. However, labels such aspseudoscience are normally intended to be stigmatising. They also serve to implicitlyattribute high value to being scientific.

In the next section, I examine some features of Wikipedia’s treatment of challengers toscientific orthodoxy, including the use of stigmatising labels in the English-languageWikipedia entries for fluoridation, the origin of AIDS, and vaccination.

4 Wikipedia treatment of scientific and medical heterodoxy

Wikipedia hosts a “project” titled “Wikiproject Skepticism”( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism ) thatencapsulates the sort of boundary work undertaken by members of the Skepticsmovement. ¹ On the project page there is a link to a list of topics( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism/List ). Its firsttwo sections, the main ones, are “valid science” and “pseudoscience.” The implication isthat Wikipedia, as a collectively produced representation of knowledge, has the authorityand the ability to distinguish “valid science” from what doesn’t constitute “valid science,”labelled here as pseudoscience.

It is also revealing to look at Wikipedia’s description of “scientific skepticism”:

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism ), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry , is an epistemological position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence. In practice, the term most commonly references the examination of claims and theories that appear to be beyond mainstream science, rather than the routine discussions and challenges among scientists.

What this description lacks is evidence that philosophers, sociologists and others whohave written extensively about scepticism in science direct their attention toclaims outside of mainstream science. As noted earlier, Merton [ 1973 ] posited“organised scepticism” as one of the four norms of science that apply within themainstream scientific community. The Wikipedia sentence quoted above abouthow “scientific skepticism” is applied “in practice” best applies to the Skepticsmovement.

Wikipedia’s compendium of alternative medicine includes a huge number ofmodalities and treatments, from acupuncture to yoga as therapy. Wikipedia includes a“sidebar” on alternative medicine. When a topic is included in the sidebar — which isedited and discussed on a separate page — then the sidebar appears on the topicpage.

Among the categories included in the sidebar on “Alternative medicine” is “conspiracytheories.” It so happens that three of the topics contained in the sidebar on conspiracytheories are ones about which I have written scholarly analyses. Accordingly, I lookat these three topics, searching especially for the rationale for labelling themconspiracy theories, and compare Wikipedia’s approach to that of the EncyclopædiaBritannica.

4.1 Water fluoridation controversy

Fluoridation refers to adding compounds containing the element fluorine to publicwater supplies. In solution, fluorine becomes its ionised form fluoride. The aim offluoridation is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in people, especially children,who drink the water. Fluoridation was first widely introduced in the UnitedStates in the 1950s and then was taken up by governments in a number of othercountries.

From its earliest days, fluoridation was controversial. Proponents have argued that itgreatly reduces tooth decay and has few if any adverse effects. Critics have claimed thatfluoridation can lead to skeletal fluorosis, reductions in IQ and a number of other adverseeffects. Critics have also questioned the scale of the benefits. The controversy also hasethical and political dimensions. Proponents say fluoridation is especially important forpeople unable to afford dental care, whereas critics say fluoridation is compulsory medicaltreatment with an uncontrolled dose. Proponents usually say decisions should be madeby governments on advice from health experts whereas critics often supportcitizen participation, for example via referenda [Freeze and Lehr, 2009 ; Martin, 1991 ].

Wikipedia has an entry on water fluoridation, which addresses many matters such asevidence, mechanism, alternatives, history and economics. There is a separate entry titled“Water fluoridation controversy,” which discusses the antifluoridation movement. On 6–7November 2016, this latter entry was added to the sidebar about “Alternative medicine” inits subcategory of “Conspiracy theories,” implying that antifluoridationism is a conspiracytheory.

In the history of the fluoridation controversy, there have been a few opponents whohave alleged that certain groups have promoted fluoridation to serve their vested interests.However, based on my studies of the controversy [Martin, 1991 ], these views have alwaysbeen marginal. Most antifluoridation campaigners are driven by concerns about adversehealth effects and the imposition of a semi-compulsory treatment at an uncontrolleddose.

Wikipedia’s entry on the water fluoridation controversy contains some discussion ofconspiracy theories, but no comment about whether these views are prevalent orimportant among antifluoridation campaigners and supporters. Furthermore, thereis no attempt to say that antifluoridationism is itself a conspiracy theory. Thepoint here is that the conspiracy-theory tag has been applied by some editors ofthe Alternative Medicine sidebar without sufficient justification in the relevantentry.

Interestingly, the mainstream history of promotion of fluoridation can beread as a conspiracy by a number of Wisconsin dentists who campaigned in theface of official resistance to adding fluoride to public water supplies [McNeil, 1957 ]. In the early years, support for fluoridation challenged mainstream views,but because the conspiracy-theory label is only applied to current heterodoxy,profluoridationism has never been described as a conspiracy theory — at least not inWikipedia.

The Encyclopædia Britannica [ 2021 ] has some information about fluoridation. It isone-sided, entirely supportive of fluoridation, but has no mention of conspiracytheories.

4.2 OPV-AIDS hypothesis

The standard view about the origin of AIDS is that simian immunodeficiency viruses(SIVs) from monkeys or chimpanzees entered humans, becoming HIVs, and becametransmissible. The question is how this happened. According to the cut-huntertheory, when a hunter in Africa was butchering a chimp, chimp blood accidentallygot into a wound, allowing the chimp SIV to infect the hunter [de Sousa et al., 2010 ].

A different view is that some polio vaccines — which for decades were grown onmonkey kidneys — were prepared on chimp kidneys. These vaccines, given to nearly amillion people in central Africa in the late 1950s, enabled SIVs to enter humans. This iscalled the OPV theory, referring to oral polio vaccines: the vaccines were given orally[Hooper, 2000 ].

In January 2020, the Wikipedia entry named “OPV-AIDS hypothesis” was renamed“OPV-AIDS conspiracy theory” and the alternative medicine sidebar was added, withOPV-AIDS listed in its conspiracy-theory category. On the talk page, an editor gave thereason: “The concept of intentional creation of HIV is fringe.” This was based on amisunderstanding of the OPV theory, which is quite different from the view that HIV wascreated in a biological warfare lab. In this instance, a theory was incorrectly classified —and stigmatised — due to ignorance by Wikipedia editors. After some months, the nameof the entry was changed to “Oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis,” thereby rectifying themisleading label.

The Encyclopædia Britannica has considerable information about AIDS, but just two paragraphs about the origin of AIDS, presenting the orthodox cut-hunter view. It does notmention the OPV theory.

4.3 Vaccination

Vaccination, as a means to prevent and control infectious diseases, is universally endorsedby medical authorities. Nevertheless, there are some critics of vaccination or ofparticular vaccines, including some scientists and doctors [e.g. Gøtzsche, 2020 ].Some parents have reservations about the recommended vaccination schedule,and prefer their children to have just some of the recommended vaccines, or tohave them spaced out [Reich, 2016 ]. In much writing about vaccination in themass and social media, the diversity of people’s concerns is ignored and anyonewho questions government recommendations is labelled “anti-vaccination” or“anti-vax.” On the other hand, some social scientists and medical scientists aresensitive to the complexity of the issue and avoid the term “anti-vax,” at least inpublications.

On Wikipedia, the “anti-vaccination” label is applied. The “anti-vaccinationmovement” was added to the sidebar on alternative medicine in November 2016, andmore recently appears on the entry for “Vaccine hesitancy.” According to the entry,vaccine hesitancy is “also known as ‘anti-vaccination’ or ‘anti-vax’.” In this entry,there are a few mentions of conspiracy theories, though put in context with thestatement that “While some anti-vaccinationists openly deny the improvementsvaccination has made to public health, or succumb to conspiracy theories, itis much more common to cite concerns about safety.” [endnotes omitted]. Thementions of conspiracy theories in the entry do not constitute a case for what thesidebar implies, namely that anti-vaccination is itself a conspiracy theory. Theconspiracy-theory label thus might be interpreted primarily as a discreditingdevice.

The Encyclopædia Britannica has many entries concerning vaccination. None of themmentions conspiracy theories.

4.4 Assessment

In summary, on three topics covered by Wikipedia — fluoridation, the origin of AIDS andvaccination — critics of scientific and medical orthodoxy have been labelled conspiracytheorists. In each case, this label seems more stigmatising than descriptive, given the lackof justification for the label in the relevant entries. The Encyclopædia Britannicadoes not associate any of these topics with conspiracy theories. Compared withBritannica, Wikipedia editors seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to identify anddiscredit so-called fringe beliefs in science and medicine. In this treatment, theoutcome of Wikipedia editing seems to be aligned with the agenda of the Skepticsmovement.

The boundary work involved on these topics is quite specific. In the usual varieties ofboundary work, entire fields, such as parapsychology and astrology, are categorised asnon-science. For the Skeptics movement, and at least some Wikipedia entries, thisboundary work extends to any viewpoint that clashes with current scientific and medicalorthodoxy.

This examination reveals a feature of Wikipedia that seldom receives attention.Contributions to Wikipedia are supposed to be based on reliable sources (RS), namelycredible or authoritative sources of information outside Wikipedia itself. Yet itseems that in setting up categories — for example “alternative medicine” or“pseudoscience” — on Wikipedia, there is no requirement or expectation that these bebased on RS. This means that editors can assert their own views about classificationsystems quite independently of whether the same classifications are used, muchless justified, outside Wikipedia. For example, on 30 July 2019, administratorGuy set up a category, “Vaccine hesitancy,” without any reference to the wayvaccine hesitancy is defined or described by the World Health Organization or byscholars in the vaccine field. The category lists four sub-categories: anti-vaccinationactivists, anti-vaccination media, anti-vaccination organizations and orthopathy, plus18 Wikipedia pages, including topics and individuals. Neither the talk nor thehistory tabs reveal any justification for this categorisation, much less any RS. Thealternative medicine sidebar is another example of categorisation not backed byRS.

Establishing categories is a powerful way of shaping perceptions and constrainingcontributions. Wikipedia’s lack of an expectation for having reliable sources for itssystem of categories is a gap in its architecture and rules that seems to have beenfilled by editors with Skeptic sensibilities, and no doubt by others in differentdomains.

5 Conclusion

Boundary work refers to efforts to demarcate one area from another. In science, boundarywork is most commonly carried out by scientists to distinguish science from non-science,in a situation in which science is seen as intrinsically more valuable. The examinationhere is of scientific boundary work carried out by groups operating outside thescientific domain. Specifically, the Skeptics movement operates almost like avigilante group, attacking groups deemed to be non-scientific far more than do mostscientists.

To look more closely at the influence of the Skeptics movement, the domain ofWikipedia was examined. Unlike traditional encyclopedias, in which different entries arewritten by topic specialists, Wikipedia offers the possibility for individuals without topicexpertise to have an impact on a range of topics. Wikipedia thus is a fertile field for thosewith a Skeptics sensibility, whether or not they coordinate their actions, to influenceentries on a range of topics in the same general direction.

One of the methods used on Wikipedia is to apply labels that, in the guise of beingdescriptions, are stigmatising. Skeptics regularly use the term “pseudoscience” and“conspiracy theory” in a derogatory fashion. When these terms are used systematicallyon Wikipedia, this is compatible with there being an influence from a Skepticsperspective.

The dynamics of Wikipedia are quite different from those affecting socialmedia. On social media, it is easy to set up blogs, Facebook pages and the like.Skeptics might want to censor the online presence of those they oppose, buthave no reliable way to do so. Critics of fluoridation and vaccination have wellestablished portals on the World Wide Web [e.g. Helmi, Spinella and Seymour, 2018 ].The key here is that social media facilitate the expression of many voices. Incontrast, Wikipedia is built around presenting a single voice, seen by readers asthe voice of Wikipedia itself. The structure of Wikipedia, like that of traditionalencyclopaedias, does not allow rival entries. It is in this context that Wikipedia editorssharing a similar orientation can have a great influence on the choice, content andexpressive characteristics of Wikipedia entries, something not possible in social mediadomains.

This is a preliminary study, necessarily so because of the lack of recent studies of theSkeptics movement by social scientists, the vast scale of Wikipedia, the anonymity ofmany of its editors and the contested and ever-changing content of Wikipedia entries.Nevertheless, this investigation shows the value of looking at the role of groups outsidescience in undertaking boundary work. It also shows the potential of examiningWikipedia for evidence of such boundary work. Despite the challenges posed byeditor anonymity and content variability, Wikipedia provides some compensatingadvantages for social analysts: edit histories and talk pages offer information about thetransformations of particular entries that is usually impossible to access in traditionalencyclopedias.

The approach used here involves looking for parallels — or homologies or congruence— between Wikipedia entries and characteristic techniques used by Skeptics. Specifically,(1) Wikipedia’s description of scientific scepticism is more typical of the view of Skepticsthan usage within the scientific community or the social studies of science; (2)Wikipedia’s inclusion of lists of deviant ideas and practices is closer to the methodsof Skeptics organisations than to the practice in traditional encyclopedias; (3)Wikipedia’s labelling of certain views as pseudoscience and conspiracy theories ischaracteristic of approaches used by Skeptics; and (4) Wikipedia’s categories, establishedwithout reliance on reliable sources, are congruent with Skeptic orientations. Thisdoes not prove that Skeptics are shaping Wikipedia but is compatible with thatpossibility.

The same sort of approach might be used to study other sources of bias onWikipedia. For example, it would be revealing to study the use of derogatorylanguage in case studies from a variety of areas, for example history, medicine,environment, politics and religion. As well, other indicators, in addition to language,could be used, for example choices of sources cited and addition or deletion oftext.

Social science investigators might consider the possibility of learning about Wikipediaby becoming an editor. In the tradition of action research, engagement in the domain being studied can provide insights not available to a non-participating researcher. Whether ornot a researcher could make any lasting change to Wikipedia entries, there are plenty ofoutlets for publication outside the Wikipedia domain.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to Lee Basham, Daniel Beckman, Kurtis Hagen, David Hess, Jim Page and ananonymous reviewer for valuable comments.

References

Adler, T. D. (13th July 2020). ‘Wikipedia editors smeared Mark Levin in multiyear campaign’. Breibart.com . URL: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/13/wikipedia-editors-smeared-mark-levin-in-multiyear-campaign/ .

Alliance for Natural Health (12th December 2018). Wikipedia censorship of natural, non-drug therapies . URL: https://www.anhinternational.org/2018/12/12/wikipedia-censorship-of-natural-non-drug-therapies/ .

Barnes, S. B. and Dolby, R. G. A. (1970). ‘The Scientific Ethos: A deviant viewpoint’. European Journal of Sociology 11 (1), pp. 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003975600001934 .

Bjerg, O. and Presskorn-Thygesen, T. (2016). ‘Conspiracy Theory: Truth Claim or Language Game?’ Theory, Culture & Society 34 (1), pp. 137–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276416657880 .

Campanario, J. M. and Martin, B. (2004). ‘Challenging dominant physics paradigms’. Journal of Scientific Exploration 18 (3), pp. 421–438.

Collins, H. M. and Pinch, T. (1982). Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science. Reprinted in 2009. London, U.K.: Routledge.

de Sousa, J. D., Müller, V., Lemey, P. and Vandamme, A.-M. (2010). ‘High GUD incidence in the early 20th Century created a particularly permissive time window for the origin and initial spread of epidemic HIV strains’. PLoS ONE 5 (4), e9936.

Dentith, M. R. X., ed. (2018). Taking conspiracy theories seriously. Lanham, MD, U.S.A.: Rowman & Littlefield.

Encyclopædia Britannica (2021). Chicago, IL, U.S.A.: Britannica Group.

Ford, H. and Wajcman, J. (2017). ‘“Anyone can edit”, not everyone does: Wikipedia’s infrastructure and the gender gap’. Social Studies of Science 47 (4), pp. 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312717692172 .

Freeze, R. A. and Lehr, J. H. (2009). The Fluoride Wars: How a modest public health measure became America’s longest-running political melodrama. Hoboken, NJ, U.S.A.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470463710 .

Gieryn, T. F. (1983). ‘Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists’. American Sociological Review 48 (6), pp. 781–795. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095325 .

— (1995). ‘Boundaries of science’. In: Handbook of science and technology studies. Ed. by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Peterson and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, CA, U.S.A.: Sage, pp. 393–443. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412990127.n18 .

— (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, U.S.A.: University of Chicago Press. URL: https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/C/bo3642202.html .

Gøtzsche, P. C. (2020). Vaccines: Truth, lies and controversies. Copenhagen, Denmark: People’s Press.

Greenstein, S. and Zhu, F. (2012). ‘Is Wikipedia biased?’ American Economic Review 102 (3), pp. 343–348. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23245554 .

Greenstein, S. and Zhu, F. (2018). ‘Do Experts or Crowd-Based Models Produce More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia’. MIS Quarterly 42 (3), pp. 945–959. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2018/14084 .

Helmi, M., Spinella, M. K. and Seymour, B. (2018). ‘Community water fluoridation online: an analysis of the digital media ecosystem’. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 78 (4), pp. 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/jphd.12268 .

Hess, D. J. (1993). Science in the New Age: The paranormal, its defenders and debunkers, and American culture. Madison, U.S.A.: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hooper, E. (2000). The river: A journey to the source of HIV and AIDS. Boston, U.S.A.: Little, Brown.

Horrobin, D. F. (1969). Science is God. Aylesbury, U.K.: Medical and Technical Publishing Company.

Jemielniak, D. (2014). Common Knowledge? An ethnography of Wikipedia. Stanford, CA, U.S.A.: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.11126/stanford/9780804789448.001.0001 .

Kuhn, T. S. (1963). ‘The function of dogma in scientific research’. In: Scientific change: Historical studies in the intellectual, social and technical conditions for scientific discovery and technical invention, from antiquity to the present. Ed. by A. C. Crombie. London, U.K.: Heinemann, pp. 347–369.

Lih, A. (2009). The Wikipedia revolution: How a bunch of nobodies created the world’s greatest encyclopedia. London, U.K.: Aurum.

Lovink, G. and Tkacz, N., eds. (2011). Critical point of view: A Wikipedia reader. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Institute of Network Cultures.

Martin, B. (1991). Scientific knowledge in controversy: The social dynamics of the fluoridation debate. Albany, U.S.A.: State University of New York Press.

— (2010). ‘How to Attack a Scientific Theory and Get Away with It (Usually): The Attempt to Destroy an Origin-of-AIDS Hypothesis’. Science as Culture 19 (2), pp. 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430903186088 .

— (2018). Vaccination panic in Australia. Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing.

McNeil, D. R. (1957). The fight for fluoridation. New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press.

Merton, R. K. (1973). ‘The normative structure of science’. In: The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL, U.S.A.: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278.

Mitroff, I. I. (1974). The subjective side of science. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.

Mulkay, M. J. (1976). ‘Norms and ideology in science’. Social Science Information 15 (4/5), pp. 637–656.

Mulkay, M. and Gilbert, G. N. (1981). ‘Putting Philosophy to Work: Karl Popper’s Influence on Scientific Practice’. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 11 (3), pp. 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839318101100306 .

Oeberst, A., Beck, I., Matschke, C., Ihme, T. A. and Cress, U. (2019). ‘Collectively biased representations of the past: Ingroup Bias in Wikipedia articles about intergroup conflicts’. British Journal of Social Psychology 59 (4), pp. 791–818. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12356 .

Paling, E. (21st October 2015). ‘Wikipedia’s hostility to women’. The Atlantic . URL: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ .

Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press.

Reagle Jr., J. M. (2010). Good faith collaboration: The culture of Wikipedia. Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.: MIT Press.

Reagle, J. and Koerner, J., eds. (2020). Wikipedia @ 20: Stories of an Incomplete Revolution. Cambridge, MA, U.S.A.: MIT Press.

Reich, J. A. (2016). Calling the shots: Why parents reject vaccines. New York, U.S.A.: New York University Press. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1803zjf .

Rotter, C. (9th March 2020). ‘Delingpole: Wikipedia airbrushes list of climate sceptic scientists out of history’. Watts Up With That? URL: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/09/delingpole-wikipedia-airbrushes-list-of-climate-sceptic-scientists-out-of-history/ .

Sanger, L. (14th May 2020). ‘Wikipedia is badly biased’. Larrysanger.org . URL: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ .

Sceptical about Skeptics (n.d.). Wikipedia . URL: https://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/ .

Sheldrake, R. (n.d.). Wikipedia under threat . URL: https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/wikipedia-under-threat .

Shermer, M. (1997). Why people believe weird things? Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York, NY, U.S.A.: W. H. Freeman/ Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co.

Tkacz, N. (2015). Wikipedia and the politics of openness. Chicago, U.S.A.: University of Chicago Press.

Ullman, D. (10th October 2014). ‘Dysfunction at Wikipedia on homeopathic medicine’. HuffPost . URL: http://huffpost.com/entry/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226 .

Uscinski, J. E., ed. (2018). Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them. New York, U.S.A.: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190844073.001.0001 .

Weiler, C. (2013). Psi wars: TED, Wikipedia and the battle for the Internet. U.S.A.: White Crow Books.

Wikipediocracy (2021). Wikipediocracy . URL: http://wikipediocracy.com .

Author

Brian Martin is emeritus professor of social sciences at the University of Wollongong,Australia. E-mail: bmartin@uow.edu.au .

Endnotes