Inequalities in the information available for different languages online has implications for who and what gets represented – and by whom.

Research by Mark Graham and Matthew Zook shows the inequality of representation that emerges when you map which languages describe different geographies. Their visualisation (explore on the right) illustrates which articles relate to different places in separate language editions on Wikipedia. The dominant language – English – has the densest information and greatest geographical spread. However, if you explore what the world looks like if you speak Hebrew or Arabic, a very different picture is painted. There are huge information vacuums in non-dominant languages, where people, places and cultures are swallowed into the dark. And when you look at places described by smaller languages on Wikipedia, it is notably the global south that disappears.

"Rich countries largely get to define themselves and poor countries largely get defined by others." Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute

This information inequality, Graham argues, has the potential to reinforce colonial-era patterns of information production and representation. Another map, highlighting which language dominates the descriptions of different countries, shows that English, followed up by French, overwhelmingly dominates most of Africa, Asia and parts of eastern Europe. In short, it appears on Wikipedia at least, dominant languages (mostly from the western world) are amplified and end up largely speaking for those with less powerful voices.

Inequality in information and representation in different languages online can also affect how we understand places and even how we act in them. In a case study of the West Bank, searching for “restaurant” locally in Hebrew, Arabic and English brought back different results for each language.

That Google can send Arabic speakers to one part of the city and Hebrew speakers to another when they are searching for the same thing could risk reinforcing social segregation in the city. This case study, Graham argues, should invite questions around the important economic, social and political responsibility of the company: “It isn't good enough for Google to throw their hands in the air and point to their algorithms when asked why data are mediated and presented in certain ways. Whether they like it or not, they shape how millions of people interact with their cities.”