Wikipedia is, perhaps, the most contentious of all the platforms I have ever used. Its open-data nature has allowed it to reach heights that is impossible for products of its nature. Sadly, popularity is not always a blessing. In fact, the Linux kernel is the only project I have come across that has maintained its sense of purpose and effectiveness despite its ongoing popularity. Perhaps, it has something to do with the “benevolent dictatorship” paradigm it employs. Regardless, Wikipedia has spawned much controversy and will continue to do so because of clashing ideologies, worldviews, and backgrounds the people contributing to it come from. Now, Wikipedia does have its rules and regulations to maintain some form of neutrality; but, that can only go so far. Its fifth rule sums its entire process nicely.

Add to the fire

I had already read the guidelines on contributing to Wikipedia and the primer for newcomers. During my shenanigans around the website, I came across a few Talk pages that were mesmerizing; this was because of the nature of debate and interpretation that naturally takes place in such a public forum.

Wikipedia has no firm rules

The distinction between contributing to Wikipedia and another open-source/open-data project is that usually the contributions do not have such far reaching precautions. Indubitably, Wikipedia is usually the chief result in response to a search query via Google or other major search engines. It is natural to see, then, the discord that such power spawns.

Amidst all this chaos – about which I have written before – I decided to contribute to the greater community.

Hearsay

After making an account, I decided to find pages that were suited to my liking. Although, it was recommended to me to find something worthwhile earlier, I hold a maxim very close to my heart.

I will stop doing something once it becomes a chore

Now, before you accuse me of not being reliable – which might have some truth to it – this quote only applies to things that I find interesting at first, but make a job out of later on.

Keeping the above in mind, I began my digital stroll through the Wikipedia pages of Islamic History; specifically, pages related to Islamic scholars. I visited the likes of Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Rajab, and Diya al-Din. Although, a layperson living in America would not be able to pronounce – let alone know – these names, I hold these people’s works in high regard. Of course, if the global trend is any indication, I thought that information would be scarce on Wikipedia pages regarding these scholarly figures.

To my surprise, not only was the information usually very accurate, it was also concise, and to the point (unlike this blogpost). Anyway, being defeated, I turned my attention towards modern scholars and Jonathan A.C. Brown came to mind almost immediately. I was aware of some controversy surrounding him a few months ago, so I jumped to the Talk page, and –Lo and Behold! – people were debating each other about things he had supposedly said. Thankfully, Brown, being the knowledgeable person I know him to be, clarified his position in a number of subsequent publications, which caused that section to be removed.

One might ask, why is all this important?

Tiptoe

Ever seen a person who sneaks in while different parties are engaged in bickering, does something, and escapes? That’s what I felt like. I came in after all the controversy was over and simply added his upcoming book, Slavery and Islam under the bibliography section and left. I am eagerly looking forward to the book that is due Fall of 2019, and thought this was a great chance to make a contribution.

Whether or not it was non-trivial, is a different story.