Wikipedia’s coverage of Afro-Brazilians offers an acceptable overview of the concept, though lacking in crucial details and plagued with American bias. In an attempt to stay neutral, the page relies heavily on factual evidence from surveys and genetic testing. The majority of citations come from government websites and literature discussing the topic, most of which are in Portuguese, but all of which are an even mix of recent and somewhat dated information. This places a heavy burden on translators, given the duty of accurate transformation of information from one language to another. It adds a level of uncertainty to the article, as phrasing can create altered interpretations. Many of these authors having opposing views, which helps create a fuller version of how Brazil has constantly struggled to find an ideal way to categorize its diverse population. When these writers are in contrast, the article makes sure to address both sides while staying neutral, such as in its discussion of Sérgio Pena and Edward Telles. Unfortunately, the potential this article has is underscored by subpar editing, cultural bias, and constant interference by emotionally charged edits.
Properly structuring information in an article helps readers find what they hope to learn more about. Repeating the same thought throughout a page takes away from this. Citation [9] and [10] are used twice to explain that Afro-Brasileiro and Africano Brasileiro were not selected by as identifiers by the Brazilian public; once in the introduction of the page, and again in the Brazilian race/colour categories section. Both mentions are close paraphrasing of one another. The survey used is abbreviated as PME in the introduction, but not defined as the Monthly Employment Survey until the second time it is mentioned. This shows a reverse thought process, where attention was given to the body first, in a situation where outside sources will be using a chronological pattern while reading. Citations become an issue again in the section Revaluation of Black Identity, where the entire first paragraph only has two citations with credible sources, and the rest lacking any support. Not having backup to any claims shows a lack of dedication to the subject and makes way for personal beliefs to be interpreted as fact. The section Geographic distribution of Black Brazilians constantly mentions (see table) though no captions are added to any of the tables in this section. Rather than saying “see figure 1.1”, all references to data tables in this section are assumed to be referring to whatever is directly above the text. This way of presenting information allows for more errors than necessary, and could be resolved by a quick labeling of all charts, rather than leaving untitled calculations strewn about.
Mixed in with actual constructive information about the dynamic identity of Afro-Brazilians lies American authors attempting to draw comparisons between the United States of America and Brazil. Most of these connections are justified, such as mentioning that the term “afrodescendente” may have been created due to influence from “politically correct” movements in the United States of America. However, irrelevant information such as the formation of a “racial caste” in United States in the section Conception of Black and prejudice is it’s own paragraph and is out of place in a section discussion Brazilian social issues. When reading the article in Portuguese, this point is not mentioned at all, hinting that Americans have been contributing their own biases to the development of this page. Also when reading the article in Portuguese, most sections are much more fleshed out, especially Discriminação (Discrimination). In English, there is very little discussion on Afro-Brazilian’s impact on cultural activities such as soccer, carnival, and capoeira, despite being large sectors of Brazilian identity.
The “Talk Page” provides much needed insight into the odd structure of this article. Many contributions and edits have been made by users allowing personal opinion to cloud the unbiased nature of Wikipedia. Most interactions between users are of a negative nature, a mix of Brazilians defining race in their own terms and American believing that they’re concepts of race are the global norm. The term “Afro-Brasilerio” is of constant debate. As user Ninguém argues, the creation of the term is entirely by Americans who have imposed their lebeling of African Americans into Brazilian anthropology. Others, such as user Lecen, fail to acknowledge that Brazil lacks a black/white contrast that Americans use constantly, and uses it to define Brazilian relations. Other conversations on this page are simply insults aimed at other users for removing information that contained personal opinion, such as Opinso who failed to add reliable sources to claims that turned out to be their own. Rather than correct the mistake, Opinsos accused other users of not having any lives outside of editing Wikipedia. This kind of interaction prevents any real progress, and allows what could have been valid information to be discarded due to immaturity. That being said, the majority of this page is users fixing broken external links.
Wikipedia’s page on Afro-Brazilians is a part of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to provide more information on the South American nation for an English audience. Generally speaking, the page provides a very basic introduction into identity and African decent in Brazil, though some issues of formatting, biases, and personal ideas interfere with the information in this article. Compared to in-class discussions, the page most obviously has much more factual backup, compared to us students who base our comments on personal opinion and observation from a limited number of sources. Wikipedia strives to be an authority on all subjects of the known world, though it’s mission relies on the work of community efforts. Constant discourse and unprofessionalism destroy this ideal. It’s up to future editors to be critical of past additions, and be able to filter information to produce an unbiased representation of a controversial subject.
