A Times of London article in January (behind paywall; replicated here in The Australian) suggests that an Iranian cyber army may have been manipulating Wikipedia on behalf of Iran.
Wikipedia entries have been changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities and other abuses, The Times has learnt.
The alterations raise concerns that the site is being used to manipulate information about the hardline Islamic regime. Details have been changed to discredit dissident groups, and government publications have been presented as impartial sources on the free online encyclopaedia.
In one case key details about mass executions by the regime were removed. The involvement of senior officials in the 1988 death commissions, in which thousands of political prisoners were killed, was also deleted. In a separate ruling, supporters of Vahid Beheshti, an Iranian human rights activist who went on hunger strike in the UK, were thwarted when they tried to set up a Wikipedia page.
Mattie Heaven, Mr Beheshti’s wife, said four attempts were made to set up a page because there was so much online misinformation about her husband, who continues to put pressure on the British government to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organisation. Ms Heaven said the text was repeatedly removed so the page could not function. “We believed it was the Iranian cyber army,” she said.
Today, Wikipedia's so-called "Arbitration Committee" was asked by a throwaway account to open a case that would expose the editors involved to possible penalties.
Look at the editors mentioned.
- Ali Ahwazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Mhhossein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ghazaalch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- MarioGom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
With the apparent exception of MarioGom, every single one is an active edit-warrior activist, pushing the Hamas agenda in articles on Israel and the Gaza conflict.
If Iran is behind these accounts, then Iran is behind much of the pro-Hamas editing on Wikipedia.
Arbcom only got the request today and hasn't decided if it will take the case.
The prognosis does not look good. This request was by a newly created account, and not by an experienced user who might have more clout. Another throwaway account previously raised the issue at a noticeboard on Feb. 6. It was quickly squelched without explanation by User:Bbb23, an administrator. Wikipedia makes up its rules as it goes along, so "Arbcom" can duck or take up the issue using any pretext it chooses.
A veteran Wikipedia user opines as follows:
Arbitration has always been a last resort for the resolution of disputes that cannot be settled in any other way. The filing of Requests for Arbitration by what appear to be new accounts established for the purpose of filing requests for arbitration does not appear to illustrate that all previous methods of dispute resolution, or any methods of dispute resolution, have been exhausted. (The global edit history shows that the filer is a new account, not an account from another language Wikipedia.) The list of previous steps in dispute resolution says that the filing party (the new account) contacted the WMF, which is a different last resort for the resolution of disputes. There is no evidence of discussion at any English Wikipedia forum. The evidence of a problem is that an article has been published by a reliable source, The Times (of London), apparently stating that there is being systematic removal of reports of human rights violations by the Iranian government. I have not read the details of the report because it is paywalled. There has not been an attempt to discuss the report. If there had been a serious attempt to discuss the report, an inquiry similar to the May 2023 case on distortion of coverage of the Jews in Poland in World War Two might be in order. There has not been such an attempt, and such a case is not in order. This filing is frivolous.ArbCom should decline this case request, and remind the filer that premature filings are considered vexatious, but should be ready to consider an inquiry into distortion of Wikipedia coverage if there has been real inconclusive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
First he says the filing is not frivolous ("The evidence of a problem is that an article has been published by a reliable source") and then he says "This filing is frivolous."
This is the kind of double-talk that editors face when they try to counter the army of pro-Hamas editors. The effort to counter Iranian influence stands a good chance of dying due to sheer indifference.
Postscript: The case was quickly swept under the rug on bureaucratic grounds. An "arbitrator" explained: "It exceeded the limit of 500 words and did not describe actual prior dispute resolution attempts. Also, concerns have been voiced about your account being a throwaway account used only for filing the request."
1 comment:
It's worth noting Bbb23 has previously been admonished by ArbCom for taking hasty and unexplained actions on noticeboards that hinder the proper resolution of important matters. It's a curious feature of Wikipedia that even after a formal admonishment, a Wikipedia Administrator rarely feels compelled to change their behavior, such is their power as one of a few hundred users with significant power over other editors. And there's typically nobody around who wants to, much less has the standing, to stop someone like Bbb23 from doing whatever they want, whenever they want. The role of Wikipedia Administrator carries with it lots of leeway for personal discretion, and abusive actors like Bbb23 take full advantage of that fact. I think they almost relish the fact the can get away with this even after they have come to the attention of the proper authorities. Although as I wrote elsewhere, ArbCom has little if any democratic legitimacy, hence perhaps the total contempt people like Bbb23 have for its findings.
Post a Comment