Wikipedia:Academic freedom and Wikipedia

This is an essay on Independent sources.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Wikipedia aims to provide accurate and verifiable information based on reliable sources. One of the key considerations when evaluating sources is their independence. Academic publications or professionals operating in low academic freedom environments, those where certain topics are heavily influenced by a government, may or may not be allowable as a source on Wikipedia. This essay discusses concerns associated with these sources, the importance of academic freedom, editorial independence, and their potential impact on Wikipedia's neutrality, verifiability, and commitment to avoiding promotional content.

The issue of independence

A fundamental principle of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines is editorial independence. Reliable sources are expected to operate with a degree of autonomy from the entities they report on. Authoritarian governments, by their very nature, may not allow for accurate or sufficient coverage of sensitive topics. This is especially true in authoritarian or highly centralized political systems where academic freedom is most restricted. Some editors consider the lack of academic freedom to be an unavoidable conflict-of-interest for these publishers.

Attempts to measure academic freedom

The Academic Freedom Index is one measure of how severe restrictions on academics have been in the 20th and 21st centuries. Given significant variations between countries (and within some countries over time), Wikipedia editors might want to carefully assess the reliability of each state media source at the time it was published on a case-by-case basis. Using such sources uncritically can undermine Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality and verifiability. The field of study and other context can matter quite a bit when deciding whether to use content created in environments of low academic freedom. They can sometimes be used for attribution (e.g., "Russian state media reported that..."),but it is generally preferable to rely on independent news organizations when available and especially on political topics. If unsure, look at past discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard (RSN) to help determine how to best meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards.

Disinformation and propaganda concerns

Similar to media capture, Academics and their institutions can be swayed by financial or political influences. This capture can promote corporate narratives or used to limit or change narratives in favor of particular governments, even those outside the academic or institution's country.

Policy implications and editorial consensus

While Wikipedia does not have a blanket prohibition on academic sources by the level of academic freedom, many editors encourage others to exercise caution when citing them. Some considerations include:

In-text attribution: When using state media, explicitly stating its nature (e.g., "According to __ scholar at Moscow State University...") helps readers assess the credibility of the information in that context.

Cross-referencing information: If state media is the only source making a claim, editors should be wary. Independent confirmation from other reliable sources is preferable.

Avoiding undue weight: Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires editors to prevent undue emphasis on sources that promote a particular point of view, especially when trying to assess Academic consensus on contentious or other political topics. Caution is especially urged when claims support a position held by the government that is restricting the academic freedom of an author.

Legal considerations

Some state media organizations are designated as foreign agents under laws such as the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). While these legal designations do not necessarily impact Wikipedia's editorial policies, they may indicate that the organizations in question serve as arms of their respective governments. Editors should be mindful of the implications of using sources that governments themselves have identified as instruments of foreign influence.

Conclusion

Wikipedia's goal of providing verifiable and neutral information necessitates a careful approach to sourcing. Academic sources from more authoritarian countries with low academic freedom require scrutiny due to potential biases, lack of editorial independence, and, in some cases, documented histories of spreading disinformation. While there is no broad ban on academics from these countries in general, editors should always prioritize independent sources whenever possible and apply due diligence when incorporating these academics into Wikipedia articles where the government of that academic has a strong point of view on the subject. Discussions within the Wikipedia community help ensure that sourcing remains aligned with the project's mission to provide reliable and unbiased knowledge to readers worldwide.