The texts below were taken from a presentation I gave to art history bachelor students at Leuven University as an aid for a Wikipedia editing assignment. The students were encouraged to critically engage with the platform, in order to identify (gender) gaps or inconsistencies.

Additionally, this page includes a research exercise, Mapping the Rabbit Holes, that may be helpful to art students and junior artistic researchers (scroll down).

I have been contributing – under an alias – to mainly the Dutch language Wikipedia. My contributions range from spelling corrections to editing entire pages and making new entries. I am by no means an experienced ‘Wikipedian’, and only active on a very irregular basis.

Wikipedia talk pages: HOW many degrees?

At some point, everyone turns to Wikipedia for research. It is an incredibly useful starting point, providing a broad overview and directing readers to further reading. But as with any large-scale collaborative project that relies extensively on volunteers, Wikipedia has its flaws and blind spots.

Most users are concerned with the content of the articles, but behind the scenes there are lively discussions, especially on controversial topics. Those discussions take place on Wikipedia’s ’talk’ pages, which are open to everyone and can be accessed through a tab right next to the top of any article. They are filled with ongoing debates about content, wording, and even deeper issues of authorship and bias.

One entertaining example is the talk page for Fountain (Duchamp), which not only debates the original author of the artwork – there is evidence that Fountain is by Dada artist Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven – but also the precise angle at which the urinal should be described (the “HOW many degrees?” discussion). The resulting thread is an absurd mix of surrealism and Wiki-nerd obsession.

In more politically charged cases, such as the Antifa (United States) article, talk pages are battlegrounds where users try to impose their own perspectives. To maintain neutrality, Wikipedia protects some articles from public editing, allowing only changes that have been approved by moderators. The Antifa talk page, for example, has an extensive archive of discussions that reflect these tensions.

Fighting biases 

Wikipedia’s gaps go beyond individual articles; there are systemic biases that reflect real-world imbalances. Women and other historically overlooked groups remain underrepresented. A 2019 study found that only 11% of regular contributors to Wikipedia in the Netherlands are women, and only 3% have a non-Western immigrant background.

Fortunately, there are initiatives to address these imbalances. Various working groups track missing articles and support those who want to improve representation.

Helpful links are for instance: 

Writing about women, which addresses recurring issues in the way articles about women are written as opposed to articles about men. 

For the English Wikipedia, this list of requested articles on women artists is available. This may be helpful as a guideline of finding overlooked artists. Since often not much information on such an artist is directly available, they involve some extra research.

The Dutch language Wikipedia provides a similar list. This list includes international women artists who do have an article on the English Wikipedia (or in another language) that simply hasn’t been translated and put on the Dutch version yet, so not every artist on the list is necessarily overlooked. 

These lists and projects also exist for African American artists, and fields outside of the arts in general (such as sports and science). 

Contributing to Wikipedia 

Research based on these resources can lead to actual Wikipedia entries. Writing for Wikipedia follows specific guidelines:

• Create an account and log in when editing.
• Maintain neutrality – This can be challenging when you are passionate about a topic, but Wikipedia values balanced, fact-based writing.
• Cite reliable sources – If a source is weak or missing, the entire article may be questioned.

To get started:

Wiki Education Dashboard offers detailed training modules for students.

Your first article explains the basics (English).

Dutch Wikipedia’s equivalent and a practical walkthrough are also available.

The Wikimedia Foundation website provides deeper insights into Wikipedia’s broader mission.

A Research Exercise: Mapping the Rabbit Holes

As a visiting lecturer, I have sometimes used a simple but effective method to help art students identify and explore their research interests, or simply get a better sense of their own thinking patterns.

I assign 30 minutes of Wikipedia-based research, allowing only internal links, keeping the exercise on the encyclopedia’s site. The starting point is usually a topic related to my own research interests – say, Neanderthal.

Students skim the articles and follow any related topics that catch their attention. After 30 minutes, they all arrive at very different destinations. Their browsing histories form unique research fingerprints, revealing personal interests and associative pathways.

Repeating this exercise over time helps students to recognise patterns in their own thinking. These patterns – recurring interests, thematic connections – can form the basis of long-term research projects.

Personally, I often find myself going down prehistoric rabbit holes – archaeology, geology, the Neolithic. Other times I drift too far and end up in the world of bizarre conspiracy theories, which, not surprisingly, also have some fascinating talk pages.

Practical steps

1. Optional: Clear your browser history for an uncluttered overview.
2. Open any Wikipedia page (uninspired? Use the ‘random page’ option in the top bar menu). Optional: note the start subject.
3. Set a timer to 30 minutes (or any amount of time you want to spend on this exercise).
4. Read, or skim, the article and click on a link that seems interesting to you – try to keep an open mind, the journey is the goal.
5. Repeat, until the timer ends.
6. Visit your browser history; it will indicate unique associations and thought paths. Optional: make a copy of the browser history or note the end subject and some relevant or surprising subjects that were encountered along the way.