Recentism: How a bias can have upsides

In early November, a discussion on the New Zealand Wikipedian’s noticeboard focused on recentism: the tendency for Wikipedia articles to provide disproportionate coverage of recent events.

The discourse began with a query from a New Zealand editor about whether a new article on the current outbreak of measles in Aotearoa should be created. Comments both for and against the creation of a new article followed. There was a suggestion that a larger article on measles in New Zealand, which covers both the historic and recent outbreaks would be more appropriate. Other commenters were in support of creating a 2025 measles outbreak article, just as had been done for the 2019 outbreak. This is all standard conduct for Wikipedia — editors sharing their reasons for and against an action, until a general consensus is reached.

An editor who has been contributing to the online encyclopedia since 2003, User:Nurg, added this to the conversation:

“Wikipedia has a number of systemic biases. One of them is recentism. It happens for various reasons: editors write about what they are familiar with; news media sources are readily available online; current affairs are of interest right now.”

It’s easy to see how events that have occurred recently tend to be easier to find reliable sources for — news articles, press releases, statements can be prolific around breaking news. When compared to older or less-covered topics that may lack citations or detailed documentation, or the sources are not as easily accessible, it becomes clear that it can simply be easier to write about recent events.

This isn’t to say that recentism is something that needs to be combatted. Recentism can lead to the recruitment of new editors; high-profile current events drive traffic to Wikipedia articles, demonstrating how the encyclopedia functions in real-time. 

“We’re all volunteers who are free to work on what we want to work on, even if it perpetuates systemic biases,” added Nurg.

“I find it hard to criticise someone for writing about notable men (and neglecting notable women), or who write about the dominant culture (and neglect minority or indigenous cultures), or who write about recent events (and neglect older events).”

When it comes to Wikipedia, the perpetuation of recentism all happens in the name of the Wikimedia Movement — sharing verifiable information through an openly-accessible platform. There are positive impacts: this bias can help readers access reliable updates on a current issue or event. Problems occur when entries create inflated significance of a topic, imply unbalanced timelines in a historical context, or contain excessive irrelevant details.

Recentism is a natural byproduct of a living encyclopedia in an always-online culture. It’s not a flaw as much as a dynamic that requires awareness, balance, and constant revision.

“It’s good to encourage one another to think about Wikipedia’s biases, and whether we can do more to rectify them, rather than just perpetuate them,” concluded Nurg.