ADL Report Claims Wikipedia Editors Colluded on Long Term Anti-Israel Campaign
“In one instance, an NPR report about a young Palestinian flying a kite with a swastika on it was deleted from a Wikipedia page about Gaza protests”
This is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. The left uses it to manipulate perceptions on certain topics.
The New York Post reports:
Dozens of Wikipedia editors colluded on years-long anti-Israel campaign, bombshell ADL report claims
More than two dozen Wikipedia editors allegedly colluded in a years-long scheme to inject anti-Israel language on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Anti-Defamation League claimed in a bombshell report released Tuesday.
The rogue editors, at least 30 of them, flooded one of the world’s most popular sites with “antisemitic narratives, anti-Israel bias, and misleading information,” according to the report by the ADL’s Center for Tech and Society.
The alleged bias also extended to pervasive “pro-Hamas perspectives” across Arabic-language Wikipedia content, the report claimed.
“The values of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation reflect our commitment to integrity and accuracy, and we categorically condemn antisemitism and all forms of hate,” a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, told The Post in a statement.
“Though our preliminary review of this report finds troubling and flawed conclusions that are not supported by the Anti-Defamation League’s data, we are currently undertaking a more thorough and detailed analysis,” the spokesperson said, adding that it’s “unfortunate” the ADL did not contact Wikimedia before the report’s release.
The battle between the leading human rights group in the US and the nonprofit group heated up last year when Wiki editors declared the ADL an “unreliable source of information” about the Israel-Gaza war, according to the Washington Post.
In January, Wikipedia’s arbitration board took disciplinary action against six “suspicious editors,” banning them from editing certain topics for trying to bully or intimidate other volunteer editors into making certain page changes, the ADL said at the time.
The nonprofit’s latest report claims alleged anti-Israel editors deleted references to antisemitism and cleaned up pages on Hamas in a years-long campaign, ramping up the rogue edits since the terror group’s Oct. 7 massacre in Israel.
In one instance, an NPR report about a young Palestinian flying a kite with a swastika on it was deleted from a Wikipedia page about Gaza protests, according to the report.
Conspiring editors deleted reports of sexual violence by Hamas from Wikipedia content, while others systematically removed references to terrorist violence from pages on Hamas, the report said.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Second Amendment activists welcome ADL to the party — late,
ADL might be finally coming back to its roots after devolving into a progressive cess pool driven by the Obama sycophant director. They never understood that other progressive organizations would never accept the ADL as one of their own no matter what they did.
Wikipedia is not a credible source for many issues., that has been the case since its inception.
It can be useful so long as you remember it’s a non-partisan site that relies exclusively on approved Leftist sources and is controlled by Leftist administrators.
Thus the GIGO principle applies.
Wikipedia is a useful tool if you know how to use it. First of all, on any controversial topic it should be treated with extreme caution; it’s much better on uncontroversial topics, but even there caution is called for. First of all, read with common sense. If something seems implausible, look at the citations provided.
Also look at the edit history; if the implausible information was added recently, assume it’s vandalism. Check the history of the editor who made that edit, and see whether their other edits also seem like vandalism. If so, correct them and note what you have done on the talk pages.
If online sources are given for the item that surprises you, check them. You may find that the sources have been misquoted, in which case fix it and note what you have done on the talk page.
Or, just don’t bother, because the site’s entire operational protocol ensures that the same vandal will come along in 30 minutes and undo your corrections anyway.