Wikipedia's AWOL Management Encourages Pro-Hamas Manipulation

Most Wikipedia 'arbitrators' don't even show up

Imagine a major media company in which the senior management is too busy at other things to do their jobs. 

This company is owned by a holding company that disclaims responsibility for content.

Together, they are a powerful, well-funded media combine that rejoices in their deficiencies and are happy to admit that there is no accountability for what is on their website, no supervision of editors and writers

They can but refuse to prevent their website from becoming a propaganda tool in the war against Israel.

I have just described Wikipedia. 

The 40 Jewish organizations that wrote the Wikimedia Foundation (the "holding company" above) to demand an investigation into the infamous "ADL is unreliable" decision were stunned into silence when the Wikimedia Foundation firmly rebuffed their appeal. 

What they don't get is that Wikipedia is intentionally mismanaged. Mismanagement is not a bug. It is a feature. Lack of accountability is marbled into the system. Wikipedia's overseers don't want to fix its problems. Even the volunteer "arbitrators" tasked with doing so are largely indifferent.

That is why Wikipedia is vulnerable to exploitation by determined pro-Hamas, anti-Israel and antisemitic operatives, professional and volunteer propagandists that I call the "Wikipedia Flood." 

That is why people who complain to Wikipedia, no matter how distinguished or influential, are told to pound sand. That is why Wikipedia shrugs off negative press attention. Organizations that are not accountable do that, whether they are Al Qaeda, the Sinaloa Cartel, or Wikipedia.

The shunning of responsibility by the so-called "Arbitration Committee," the highest Wikipedia tribunal, is the topic of a conversation currently underway on a Wikipedia discussion page. Here is a permalink to that discussion.

The "arbs" hold actual power and are in a position to stem the Wikipedia Flood. They've been asked to do so. 

Last month I posted an item on this blog describing how the "arbs" were asked to address misconduct by pro-Hamas editors. But as can be seen from the discussion captured at the top of this page, in the six weeks since that case has been pending 9 of the 13 arbs haven't even shown up to discuss the case! Only four have shown up, and only one has made a substantive contribution.

With most arbitrators too busy or lazy to care, the Wikipedia Flood has been granted a victory by default.   

Here's a permalink to the Arbitration case page as it currently appears. As you can see, the Wikipedia Flood quickly descended on the page with word salads, diversions, threats and meaningless "data." The anti-Zionist contingent wore down everyone else with the sheer gusto of their nitpicky argumentation, and the case is petering out.

The pro-Hamas editors know that "pounding away" works. It deters "the enemy" from speaking out, while persuading the arbs that the whole thing is just too darn complicated to take up their valuable time. One of their most persuasive tricks is to provide reams of meaningless "data" designed to "prove" that everything is just fine. 

They also divert the arbs by claiming that the occasional appearance of easily countered vandals, or "sockpuppets," is the real problem, if there is problem.

The pro-Hamas crew are experienced operatives and know how to work the system. Brushing off "arbcom" has been a slam-dunk. Some of their most reliable allies are volunteer "administrators" who are biased against Israel but pretend to be "uninvolved" in the subject matter. As a commenter points out below:  "Biased administrators are a serious and underestimated reason why anti-Israel editors carry the day. It's like the old saying, 'When you are playing poker with people who are dealing below the deck, the best thing to do is to fold.'"

The Wikimedia Foundation is perfectly aware that its "administrators" and "arbitrators" are not going to lift a finger to stop the Wikipedia Flood. 

So when they told the ADL and the Conference of Presidents that "neither the Board or the Foundation make content decisions on Wikipedia. A community of volunteers makes these decisions subject to Wikipedia’s terms of use,” what they are basically saying is that there is no accountability on Wikipedia, no matter how much it is abused by pro-Hamas propagandists.

This means that there are two ways of fighting the Flood. 

One way is to get in there and edit the articles that the Flood is attacking. I've posted a blog item describing how to do that. 

The other is to work actively against Wikimedia Foundation fundraising until and unless Wikipedia or the Foundation takes meaningful action against pro-Hamas operatives. There is usually a big fundraising push at the end of the year.

Don't just not give them money. Urge others not to do so. 

Defund Wikipedia.

This Blog is Getting Attention; Anti-Israel Editors Generate a Manifesto

When I began this blog in March it received virtually no attention. It was irritating. At one point I considered just giving up. No one was reading it! 

But in recent weeks I've begun to get social media and press attention, and now my "eyeballs" are through the roof. My X feed (do follow me) has gotten some pickup. I've been quoted in the media, especially by the Jewish Journal, which has thoroughly covered Wikipedia's infiltration by anti-Israel operatives. Two articles on Wikipedia appeared only yesterday in the Journal, and both prominently quoted this blog. 

Perhaps the biggest sign of this blog's growing influence, and the fear it has engendered among the people I'm writing about, has come in recent days. 

Anti-Israel Wikipedia editors have created a "deep fake" imitation of this blog. Their going to all that trouble and expense (this blog has cost me nothing) confirms of course that they are afraid of their words and actions being publicly aired, even though everything they do is public. 

More importantly, they used the opportunity to publish a manifesto telling us about themselves. They tell us that they are people who want Israel destroyed. They want a Hamas victory. They're quite frank about it. 

The two most recent articles in the Jewish Journal, both by the investigative journalist Aaron Bandler, are as follows:

■  An article quoting my Sept. 19 blog post, describing how pro-Hamas editors manipulated Wikipedia processes so that Wikipedia proclaims, in its corporate voice, that Israel is an apartheid state.

■  An accompanying article, quoting my Sept. 14 blog item, exploring how the Zionism article was turned into an anti-Zionist polemic riddled with antisemitism.

Now, here is the deepfake. Click to enlarge. I don't recommend going to the site itself for obvious reasons:

Anti-Israel editors share their thoughts

Below, in full, are the entire contents of the deepfake site:

As most of you know we are now about to enter the one year mark since the Gaza genocide great war against terrorism began. Our Dear Leader works day and night to bring our human sacrifices hostages home. So what if we become an international pariah. So what if we violate every international agreement and conduct that we are signatory to. So what that our economy is being turned into rubble, that our people are about to revolt, that the occupied land country is about to collapse, that over half a million have fled the occupied land country… you know what, that’s not important.

 What is important, is that we are on the cusp of being defeated by defeating Hamas Khamas. Yes we have not completely secured Northern Gaza, or the South now that you think about it. These people just won’t stop; after everything we did to for them. They just won’t give up and surrender return our human sacrifices hostages. It is as if Hamas Khamas did not hear we have been beaten by beating them around Gaza. We have been dropping 2000 pound bombs peace messages freedom fireworks all over the place and they are not happy.

Our Dear Leader Satanyahu Netanyahu has another blindingly dumb brilliant plan to start a war on another front, after having our bottoms spanked raw achieving many losses victories in Gaza.

Do not worry dear murderous maniacs Zioinists; we will be spanked by defeat Hamas Khamas and achieve total catastrophe victory!

The authors of the childish rhetoric quoted above control every article you read on Wikipedia that has anything to do with Israel. Let that sink in. 

Wikipedia Administrators: Toe the Anti-Zionist Line or Be Blocked

'MaskedSinger' is threatened with serious consequences if he continues to do----what?

 The "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors could not control articles without the active cooperation of the site's volunteer "administrators," who hold great power over lesser editors. Many of them are anti-Zionist themselves, and use their "tools" with greater impact than dozens of lesser editors.

Administrators can deny you access to the site entirely. They can ban you from topic areas, including everything related to Israel. They are subject to limited oversight and are only rarely removed, no matter how biased or incompetent they may be.

A good example just arose on Sept. 22, when the editor "MaskedSinger" was blocked for two months by the anti-Zionist British administrator "Doug Weller." As far as I know (please comment or email me if I missed something), no one actually complained about this editor. "Doug Weller" took it upon himself to do this. It is almost unheard-of for anti-Zionist editors to be throttled out of the blue in this manner, and usually they withstand sustained complaints with nothing happening to them.

This user's block was so gratuitous, so outwardly unfair, that it should have been immediately reversed but it was not. This entire process, including the selective and harsh punishment, serves as a warning (intentionally, I believe) to editors coming to the Zionism and other articles to counter anti-Zionist editors: toe the anti-Zionist line or be blocked.

"MaskedSinger" has been active in the Zionism article, which has been rewritten as an anti-Zionist polemic.  As I explained in a previous blog item, this user has pointed out the historical roots of Zionism dating back to antiquity. He has done so on the "talk" or discussion page of the article. A review of the past 1000 edits of the article shows that he has not edited this article for at least the past four years! (My apologies for stating in a previous version of this post that he edited the article. He did not. He just talked about it.)

Did his merely talking about that article prompt this block? What was wrong with what he said on the discussion page? Or was "Doug Weller" just angry about all the negative outside attention this article has received and taking it out on "MaskedSinger"? 

It's plain that his motive was the latter. I say that because "Doug Weller" was laughingly vague, and did not even attempt to be fair or even say with any specificity why he was blocking him. "And if this continues after you are unblocked, expect an indefinite block," "Doug Weller" warned. 

If what continues after he is blocked? He didn't say. In fact, no grounds were stated, but the block record says, without elaboration, "lack of good faith, personal attacks, persistent disruption." That of course can be said about every single anti-Israel editor. Note that the block record refers to the discussion page ("Talk:Zionism") as well as the article proper, when as I mentioned he has not edited the article.

As typically happens in such situations, other admis backed up "Doug Weller" without a second thought. His lack of providing an explanation was fine with them. "Doug will probably explain further when he's at leisure to," said the veteran administrator "Bishonen."

An appeal of the block was denied by another administrator, "PhilKnight," and the reason was illuminating: "Could you say if unblocked what you would do? Would you continue to argue the bible can be used as a historical source? I think you need a break from that." 

"MaskedSinger" was not in fact advocating use of the Bible as a "historical source" but as background for explaining the historical roots of Zionism. 

This is a good example of how Wikipedia administrators, due to their own ideological blinders (Doug Weller), bureaucrat rigidity (Bishonen) and simple incompetence ("PhilKnight") stack the deck for the Wikipedia Flood.

Above all it serves as a warning to Wikipedia editors everywhere if they are thinking of countering anti-Zionist editors and their allies in the Wikipedia leadership. Administrators will be watching you. Some of them are themselves anti-Zionist. Their buddies will back them up. 

They will block you or ban you from the topic area for any reason or no reason at all. They will do this even if you haven't actually edited an article and are just talking about it on the discussion page. They will back each other up no matter how wrong they are. They will not even pretend to be fair. 

Wikipedia Attacks German Antisemitism Fight

Lead section of Wikipedia's newly created article on Germany's antisemitism fight

Wikipedia struck a blow for antisemitism today. No, not against antisemitism, but in favor of it, smearing German efforts to fight antisemitism—and doing so on Wikipedia's front page. 

The online encyclopedia's legions of anti-Zionist editors have long been poisoning Wikipedia to promote a key part of the anti-Israel agenda: that the fight against antisemitism is bogus where anti-Zionists are concerned, and that most purported antisemites are actually just being "critical of Israel." 

Today they scored a big victory in that effort, promoting their agenda right on Wikipedia's highly-trafficked Main Page. 

The Main Page today says the following in its "Did you know" section:

[Did you know]... that one researcher found that nearly a third of the people cancelled over antisemitism allegations in Germany have been Jews?

The "Do you know" section showcases excerpts from newly created articles, and drives enormous traffic over to the articles mentioned. This one features an article created a few weeks ago titled "Anti-antisemitism in Germany." If you click over there you find that it is an anti-Zionist polemic that is intensely critical of the German opposition to antisemitism. 

The vast majority of that article is an outright attack on the German antisemitism fight, containing little that actually describes the antisemitism problem in Germany, which has become a serious problem since Oct. 7, and instead is devoted to bashing efforts to counter it. 

That's a blatant violation of Wikipedia neutrality rules, but as I have pointed out before, Wikipedia policies do not apply to the "Wikipedia flood" of anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors.  

Half the lead of the article consists of this anti-Zionist diatribe:

Controversially, the German government officially classifies the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, the accusation that Israel is committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, and the depiction of Israel as a colonial or settler-colonial entity, as antisemitic. Many of those arrested and cancelled in Germany over allegations of antisemitism have been Jews critical of Israel's policies.

Further down in the article you can see how thoroughly the article has been poisoned by anti-Zionist editors in the "Ideology," "Deplatforming and arrest of Jews" and "Reception" sections, which comprise most of the article.  

The "Deplatforming" section portrays the fight against German antisemitism as so broken that it targets innocent Jews who are outraged by that terrible regime over there in Israel. 

To the right is a photo and caption that drives home the anti-Zionist point with all the subtlety of a hydrogen bomb. Beneath a photograph of a sign saying "Free Palestine From German Guilt" is the following anti-Zionist caption:

German guilt over the Holocaust motivates unquestioning support for Israel, which has led to Jews voicing criticism of Israel being accused of antisemitism; Israeli filmmaker Yuval Abraham said in response to such accusations, "If this is Germany's way of dealing with its guilt over the Holocaust, they are emptying it of all meaning"

All three illustrations in the article are abused in similar fashion to make anti-Israel propaganda points.  

The wording in the "Do You Know" item was taken from an article in the British anti-Israel organ The Guardian, quoting the anti-Zionist activist Emily Dische-Becker. 

The Guardian article was authored last February by Kenan Malik, a British Muslim writer, in an article lecturing Jews on what is and isn't antisemitism. That, in turn hyperlinks toward a podcast in something called "The Dig," in which Dische-Becker is interviewed. In other words, this smear of German antisemitism efforts was in effect "laundered" through a supposedly "reliable" source, The Guardian, but originates from an impermissible "self-published" source, a podcast. 

By the way:

If you don't like that article don't bother bringing your complaint to the self-styled Wikipedia criticism message board "Wikipediocracy." It was created and largely permeated with anti-Zionist content by the user "Jayen466." He identifies himself as Andreas Kolbe, co-founder of Wikipediocracy. As I've mentioned previously, Wikipediocracy functions as a platform for anti-Israel editors.

Wikipedia Decrees: Israel is an Apartheid State

'Israel and apartheid' article before and after pro-Hamas editors attacked (click to enlarge)

When you blog about Wikipedia's anti-Israel obsession, there is so much going on that it's possible to miss important stuff. I did. I've just learned, totally through happenstance, that in recent weeks the "Wikipedia Flood" of pro-Hamas editors has achieved a major victory that received little if any attention outside Wikipedia.

Through sheer force of numbers, and by cannily working the system, they have manueuvered Wikipedia into saying, in its own voice, that Israel is an apartheid state, right up there with South Africa in the bad old days.

This propaganda victory achieves a major objective of pro-Hamas editors, which is to put Wikipedia as an institution on the Hamas bandwagon. It's not enough to twist articles and make them biased. They want Wikipedia to become part of their propaganda war against Israel. 

They do this in two ways, both of which took place with the "Israeli apartheid" article:

1.  Changing the titles of articles so that Wikipedia says flat-out that Israel is a no-good, genocide-committing apartheid state.

2. Rewriting the articles themselves to make those same statements, removing all balance, neutrality and words like "alleged," and not giving or downplaying the Israeli side of the story. 

They carried out their mission in the "apartheid" article not long after they rammed through a change in the title of an article so that Wikipedia itself says that Israel is committing genocide in the Gaza war. 

While all the oxygen was being consumed by the "Gaza genocide" controversy, they quietly did the same thing for an article that had been titled "Israel and apartheid." Now it's titled "Israeli apartheid," 

As a result of this title change, and previously by a months-long rewriting of the article itself, Wikipedia is saying in its own voice that Israel is committing apartheid. It's not treated as an accusation that Israel and its defenders fervently deny. It's a fact, poison to be spread around the world on the most-read English language reference site.

The mechanics of the change took place in two steps, first preceding the October 7 Hamas slaughters and then afterwards, when the Wikipedia Flood commenced attacking articles in earnest.

At the top of this blog post you can how they turned the article into Hamas propaganda. 

On the left is how the article appeared in June 4, 2023, as captured by the Wayback Machine. (The article history shows the same version of the article but not what its title was at the time.) On the right is how it appears as of Sept. 19.

Aside from the change in the title, the beginning of the article was completely differently than it is today. In June 2023 the title of the article was neutral ("Israel and apartheid") and the lead of the article read as follows:

Israel is accused by international, Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups of committing the crime of apartheid under the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, both in the occupied Palestinian territories and, by some, in Israel proper. Israel and its supporters deny the charges.

That wasn't good enough. The pro-Hamas editors aren't into neutrality or fairness. They want outright propaganda, and they were emboldened by Oct. 7. 

In the months that followed, and at an accelerated pace after Oct. 7, they were able to turn the article into outright, unashamed anti-Israel propaganda. Now the title is "Israeli apartheid" and the article currently says as follows in the first paragraph:

Israeli apartheid is a system of institutionalized segregation and discrimination in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and to a lesser extent in Israel proper. This system is characterized by near-total physical separation between the Palestinian and the Israeli settler population of the West Bank, as well as the judicial separation that governs both communities, which discriminates against the Palestinians in a wide range of ways. Israel also discriminates against Palestinian refugees in the diaspora and against its own Palestinian citizens.

Note that "Israeli apartheid" is stated as fact, without even a weak attempt at balance or neutrality.

The pro-Hamas editors, who coordinate their efforts offsite, drove the point home in a new second paragraph:

After the 1948 Palestine war, Israel denied Palestinian refugees who were expelled or fled from what became its territory the right of return and right to their lost properties. Since the 1967 Six Day War, Israel has been occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, which is now the longest military occupation in modern history, and in contravention of international law has been constructing large settlements there that separate Palestinian communities from one another and prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. The settlements are mostly encircled by the Israeli West Bank barrier. While the Jewish settlers are subject to Israeli civil law, the Palestinian population is subject to military law. Settlers also enjoy access to separate roads and exploit the region's natural resources at its Palestinian inhabitants' expense.

I could spend the rest of this blog item and a dozen others dissecting, point by point, how this new paragraph is a total rewriting of history. Suffice to say that it does not even pretend to comply with Wikipedia policies requiring neutrality.

To gild the lily, during the summer of 2023 someone added a photo showing a street in Hebron upon which someone stenciled (in English for foreign consumption or perhaps just this photo) the words "Apartheid Street." The photo, taken during a propaganda tour of the West Bank, was uploaded to Flickr by a British anti-Zionist politician named John E. Austin.  

The title change happened swiftly on the "talk page" of the article. The entirety of the discussion can be found here.

It began last July 20, when the veteran anti-Israel editor "Makeandtoss" commenced the "requested move" discussion with the comment that "this move should have been implemented years ago."

Pretty much everyone agreed. Unlike the two-month discussion on the effort by these same coterie of editors to say in Wikipedia's voice that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, there was little substantive discussion at all. Not a single editor objected. The deed was done on August 5 by an administrator named "Robertsky" just two weeks after it was proposed.

While the lack of interest in this title change is startling, as is the lack of pushback into the article's gradual transformation into blatant Hamas propaganda, that's not really surprising. 

The pro-Hamas editors are well-organized offsite and, above all, far more numerous than the editors who might oppose them. They can branch out all around Wikipedia and bring their friends with them.

They are often editors of long-standing. "Makeandtoss" has been around for ten years. Such editors  know how to work the system.

As the "apartheid" article's transformation into Hamas literature demonstrates, they've done an effective job of turning Wikipedia from a reliable if flawed source of information on the Middle East into a propaganda-filled dust bin.

'Zionism Has Ancient Jewish Roots? Who Cares?' Say Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors (Updated, 9/23)

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia editors shrug off Zionism's ancient roots

If you want to understand how completely broken Wikipedia is for anything related to Israel—how slanted, how fallacious, how downright delusional—look at the discussion currently underway on the "talk" or discussion page of the Zionism article, which has been twisted into anti-Zionist propaganda by anti-Zionist editors.

It's a matter of historical fact that Zionism is embedded in Jewish texts and practice going back to the fall of the Second Temple. But the anti-Zionist editors who control the Zionism article don't care about history. They care only about their agenda, which is to use Wikipedia as a weapon in their fight against Israel's existence.

An editor named "MaskedSinger" raised one of the numerous falsehoods and distortions in the article, the claim right at the top of the article that Zionism "emerged in Europe in the late 19th Century." 

He wrote:

This is patently untrue. If you want to go back to the start, it began when the Children of Israel were enslaved in Egypt. After the exodus, they were making their way back to Israel. They had to wander in the desert for 40 years but then conquered the land under the leadership of Joshua. Fast forward however many hundred years and they were exiled from the land, but the desire to return was crystalised than and there. Sure, with raging and horrible anti-semitism in Europe in the late 19th century Zionism become more prominent and relevant, but it didn't begin then. By then, the concept was already thousand of years old.

One only has to read Psalm 137 - By the rivers of Babylon, There we sat down, yea, we wept, When we remembered Zion.

Clearly the origins of Zionism predate the early 19th Century and are not European. They go back a millennia. But the anti-Zionist editors would have none of it. They want to portray Zionism as a European colonial movement. They want that far up in the article and they will fight fiercely to keep it that way.

So the pushback was fierce. A core group of anti-Zionist editors suddenly materialized and immediately began "tag teaming" to push their point, no doubt coordinating their actions offsite. 

"Your sources are the Bible and Wikipedia? Right," sneered the anti-Zionist editor Selfstudier, who recently larded one of his talk-page comments with an antisemitic trope. Actually "MaskedSinger" had simply linked to a Wikipedia article, he had not used it as a source. Misrepresenting what other editors have just said is contrary to Wikipedia rules, but is a common practice of the anti-Zionist contingent.

"My sources are world history," the new editor responded.

Then came the threats. 

When pro-Hamas editors encounter new editors who challenge their control of articles, they resort to threats to have the "enemy" sanctioned by cooperative administrators: "If your sources aren't WP:RS, you're disrupting this page," responded the anti-Zionist editor "Levivich."  "Disruptive" editors are subject to sanctions.

To drive the point home, "Levivich" followed up with an even cruder threat to lower the boom on "MaskedSinger" for daring to challenge their control of the Zionism article: 

"If I wasn't already knee deep in a big SPI draft, I'd be filing at ANI or AE . . . about somebody bludgeoning this talk page claiming the Bible is an RS. At the very least we should all stop engaging with this nonsense." 

"SPI" is a "sockpuppet investigation" draft, meaning he is planning to accuse another editor of using multiple accounts. "ANI" and "AE" are acronyms for disciplinary boards. Lastly, "nonsense" translates to "disagreeing with anti-Zionist editors." 

Nableezy struts his stuff

"This isn’t the world according to the Bible. Or rather the world according to one person on the internet’s understanding of the Bible," said the veteran pro-Hamas editor "Nableezy," noted for proclaiming his support for "armed struggle" (terrorism) on his personal Wikipedia "user" page.

The discussion has droned on since then, with "MaskedSinger" outnumbered and therefore destined to lose—if he's lucky. If he's not lucky, he'll be kicked out of Wikipedia or otherwise sanctioned, as threatened.

"Talk page" discussions deal with "sources" and "policies." They matter for most Wikipedia articles. But for articles on Israel it ultimately comes down to one thing: numbers. Numbers mean control. The anti-Zionist editors have the numbers, the organization and the determination, They decide which sources are "reliable" or not. They determine which "policies" will be obeyed and which will be ignored. 

'Best sources' on Zionism, as determined by an anti-Zionist Wikipedian

Two hours after "MaskedSinger" dared to contradict the anti-Zionist poison in the Zionism article, "Levivich" rushed to create a list of "best sources" top-heavy with anti-Zionist polemics, to ensure that anti-Zionist views dominate the article going forward, and to reinforce the anti-Zionist determination to ignore ancient Jewish texts that provide the very basis for Zionism. He posted them directly below MaskedSinger's post on the Zionism article talk page.

It all comes down to numbers. On any given issue, what matters is which numbers of editors can be scraped together offsite to support or oppose what the anti-Zionist editors want. And what the anti-Zionist editors want is an anti-Zionist Zionism article.

The "origins of Zionism" discussion is still underway at this writing but its outcome is preordained.

UPDATE: "MaskedSinger" was rewarded for his good work on Sept. 22 by the anti-Zionist British administrator "Doug Weller," who blocked him for two months (permalink). See this blog item.

Anti-Zionist Wikipedia Editors Fight to Control 'Zionism' Article

Fix the anti-Zionist slant? No way. Reinforce it? Sure!

Ever since my blog item appeared on the Wikipedia Zionism article, there have been complaints on social media about how the article had been transformed into an anti-Zionist polemic. These were picked up by the Jewish-American press, and today it caught the attention of the Israeli media.

Author Hen Mazzig observed on X that the article's disparagement of Ashkenazi Jewish links to the Holy Land mirrors the discredited Khazar theory of Jewish origins. The Zionism article, he said, "isn't just inaccurate, it's downright antisemitic." Wikipedia, he said, "has become a hate site." Congressman Ritchie Torres said on X that "Wikipedia caricatures Zionism" and engaged in a "warped telling of history" by branding Zionists as "colonizers."  

The 'Khazar' theory

Wikipedia advertises itself as the "encyclopedia anyone can edit." That is how it sells itself to the donors and NGOs that pour money into its coffers, providing top people at the Wikimedia Foundation with enormous salaries (see Schedule J, here). So naturally, once they became aware of the terrible state the Zionism article was in, a number of people—established editors and newcomers alike—tried to rid the article of its anti-Zionist and antisemitic slant. 

The result is an exhibition of the control that pro-Hamas editors over the Zionism article and others, how Wikipedia's processes are rigged in their favor, and how nearly impossible it is to dislodge them. 

Much of the activity is taking place on the "talk" or discussion page of the article, which now appears like this.

First a long-established editor weighed in with an explanation of how the lead paragraph gave excessive weight to "a particular interpretation of Zionism as a specific form, namely the 19th century through 1930s versions of Zionism," ignoring its future evolution,

Ignoring their points entirely, their argument was dismissed in a one-sentence reply ("I disagree. The thing in itself as described by the best academic sources is the way to go") by the anti-Zionist editor Dan Murphy, an ex-reporter whose peculiar claim to fame (a disgusting, mocking tweet on the ISIS beheading of hostage Steve Sotloff) I described in a previous blog post.

And on it went, on and on and on. It was the beginning of a 4700-word back-and-forth that is still underway at this writing, involving multiple editors. That's not 4700 words over a period of weeks or months. That's 4700 words over one single day. This discussion began only yesterday and it has already stretched into such astonishing length.

That is typical of discussions when the Wikipedia Flood of pro-Hamas editors are involved. They just go on and on and won't let up, pouring on the verbiage in wearisome and repetitive quantities. As I described in a blog post last month, Wikipedia talk pages under the control of anti-Israel editors use such methods to wear down their opponents, using the sheer numbers that they can bring to bear. 

The reaction to the Zionism article's sorry state brought out another asset in the pro-Hamas editors' arsenal: the "extended confirm" rule.

Anti-Zionist editors' control of the articles is enhanced by that rule, which requires that in the "Israel/Palestine" subject area you must have thirty days on Wikipedia and 500 edits in order to edit an article or even discuss the subject on the "talk" page. 

What this means, in a practical sense, that the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" is actually an encyclopedia that, in relevant subject ares, is dominated by a handful of pro-Hamas operatives, with the aid of feckless, biased and passive site administrators.

Yes, you can make an "edit request" if you don't meet the "extended confirm" requirement. See how two such requests were handled. They are in the illustration at the top of the page.

First came a request to change anti-Zionist language in the lead paragraph back to where it was before it became anti-Zionist. That was shot down easily. It was "under discussion above" by editors who met the "extended-confirm" rule. That nicety was happily pointed out by one of the anti-Zionist editors.

Then cane a request to reinforce the anti-Zionist language in the lead with a footnote from a book about "settler colonialism." Of course! Consider it done.

The Wikipedia Flood does not like scrutiny. Within the past few hours, the anti-Zionist ex-reporter Murphy complained about the social media and press attention the article had been getting, in a section he sneeringly titled "Bat Signal."  

Murphy's word choice, which he borrowed from the Batman comics, gives an idea of the arrogance and condescension many Wikipedia editors display toward the outside world. They are both hypersensitive to and dismissive of external attention, even though everything they do is visible to the outside world.

Pro-Hamas editors like Murphy do their article-slanting in the open. Every single word that they write is a matter of public record for all to see. This entire blog is an accumulation of what they do and write on one of the world's most trafficked and influential websites. 

So when the pro-Hamas editor "Selfstudier" makes use of an antisemitic slur ("pound of flesh") on a discussion page, it's right there in plain view for everyone to see. One does not require any special access. You just simply have to go on the web and read.

Yet they just can't stand it when anyone holds up a mirror to what they do.  

Anti-Zionist Editors Trash Wikipedia 'Zionism' Article

Anti-Zionist spin in red (click to enlarge)

As part of our continuing series of blog items focusing on Wikipedia articles trashed by anti-Israel editors, a good example is the article on Zionism.

The article, which currently looks like this, reads as if it was written by a coterie of anti-Zionist activists. Because it was.

The slanting of the article, almost certainly coordinated offsite, took place in a spasm of edits by pro-Hamas editors subsequent to Oct. 7, when the article was reasonably stable and was not heavily edited. At the time of the "Al Aqsa Flood" slaughter in the Gaza Envelope, it provided a balanced and neutral depiction of Zionism, noting criticism by anti-Zionists but not giving undue emphasis to it. Then the Wikipedia Flood invaded the article.

It took a lot of hard work by pro-Hamas editors to turn the article on Zionism into anti-Zionist propaganda, with some of the most toxic changes happening in the past few weeks. 

On August 11, the prolific anti-Zionist editor "Levivich" added at the top of the article that "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible."  

The sourcing of that and other anti-Zionist statements includes a long roster of anti-Zionists. The sourcing of the statement cited above include anti-Israel extremists such as Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, infamous for his support of terrorism, all quoted at length in a footnote. 

On Wikipedia, Zionism is defined by people who hate Zionism. It's the Wikipedia way, as pointed out in this blog and in a recent Jewish Journal article. 

Anti-Zionist sourcing cited by anti-Zionist editors results in an anti-Zionist article that makes a mockery of Wikipedia's supposed "neutral point of view" policy. Thus the frequent and prominent references to Zionism as a "colonial" movement, and the watering down of text that points out that Zionism is actually a movement of return of an indigenous people to their homeland. 

A sentence that read 

This process was seen by the Zionist Movement as an "ingathering of exiles" (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by bringing the Jewish people back to their historic homeland 

was edited to read 

The process of Jews moving or 'returning' to the land (around today's Palestine and Israel) they purportedly had been exiled from, was seen by the emerging Zionist movement as an "ingathering of exiles" (kibbutz galuyot), an effort to put a stop to the exoduses and persecutions that have marked Jewish history by bringing the Jewish people back to their historic homeland.

Note "purportedly" and how other language was added to downplay the roots of the Jewish people in the Holy Land, which is well-established historical fact.

An effort by an editor to return the article to its pre-Oct. 7 state was twice reverted today, with the results shown in the illustration at the top. The anti-Zionist poison is outlined in red.

The editor who sought to fix the article was promptly targeted by an administrator on grounds of "gaming the system," and was banned from the topic area.*  

The Zionism article is an excellent example of how anti-Zionism is baked into Wikipedia through slanted sourcing and a "flood" of well-established anti-Zionist, anti-Israel and often just plain antisemitic editors, who are allowed to run rampant by indifferent "administrators," often themselves anti-Israel, abetted by a do-nothing Arbitration Committee and a Wikimedia Foundation that looks that other way.

*In fairness, this editor did "game the system" by making trivial edits like this to inflate his edit count. To cement their control over the topic areas, pro-Hamas editors pushed through a rule requiring editors to have at least thirty days editing experience and 500 edits in order to edit "Israel/Palestine" articles.. In a previous blog item I warned against edit-inflation games to surmount this unfair rule.

Biased Sources Dictated by Biased Editors Mean Biased Articles

A new article is out in the Jewish Journal by the great Aaron Bandler on an issue that we've described several times in the past: how sources on Wikipedia are skewed against Israel. The article can be found here. 

In what world are Al Jazeera, MSNBC and Mother Jones considered reliable sources but Fox News, The New York Post and Daily Mail are not? Answer: Wikipedia, where editors can only summarize what reliable sources say …  or at least sources that Wikipedia editors have determined to be reliable.

How do the sources get skewed? It comes down to numbers, as we've said many times. The Wikipedia Flood has the numbers. Aaron also makes an important point, which is that bad sourcing leads to still more bad sourcing. Sources that are anti-Israel are used as justification for giving a blessing to the use of even worse sources. It's a kind of closed loop of bad sourcing.

But even there, it comes down to numbers and to the aggressive tactics the pro-Hamas editors use to get their way: bullying other editors, brazenly organizing offsite, and seeking to have the "enemy" tossed out of the subject area. 

One editor told me they’re optimistic that “over time pro-Hamas sources will be downgraded … Unfortunately I think all the scare tactics and firing squad tactics have made pro-Israel editors afraid to opine.”

Yet again, it comes back to numbers.

Pro-Hamas Wikipedia Editors Lay Siege to 'Screams Before Silence'

The largest section of the article is criticism

On occasion I'll briefly focus on a Wikipedia article that is a good example of pro-Hamas editors in action. Today I'll highlight the article on Screams Before Silence, the searing documentary on systematic rape of Israelis on Oct. 7.

In its current incarnation it looks like this. The article is ridiculously slanted. Its largest segment consists of criticism, in a section that is larger than the one above it, which describes the production of the film.

The bloated "Criticisms" [sic] section leads off with an attack on the documentary by the antisemitic propagandist Ali Abunimah, writing in the online blog "The Electronic Intifada." EI is a Hamas mouthpiece that is so far in the fringes that Wikipedia "deprecates" it. That designation means that it the "Electronic Intifada" is ranked even lower than the ADL, which Wikipedia recently ruled unusable on articles related to Israel.

Wikipedia has the following guideline for deprecated sources: 

The source is considered generally unreliable, and use of the source is generally prohibited. Despite this, the source may be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, although reliable secondary sources are still preferred.  

It's not supposed to be used but it is used, because the rules do not apply to pro-Hamas editors. They have the numbers, the guile, and the offsite coordination to get their way. They are supported by the large number of Wikipedia editors and administrators who don't actively edit articles on Gaza but are hostile to Israel. As I mentioned to a non-editor only yesterday, the "Wikipedia flood" and its tools are not good-faith editors. They edit to push an agenda. In this case the agenda is to push the Hamas propaganda line denying that rapes took place. 

The other major source of criticism in the "criticisms" section is a YouTube video from "Breaking Points," also a pro-Hamas organ, whose host has lamented that Hamas doesn't have air power to use to kill Jews.

The two editors who inserted this material in the article, violating Wikipedia rules, have the user names Ïvana and Raskolnikov.Rev.   

"Ïvana" is the "resident expert" of the Discord channel that was the subject of the last two items in this blog, which can be found at this link and this one. Its aim is to turn Wikipedia articles into pro-Hamas propaganda, and rape denial is one of their primary tactics. Articles concerning Hamas's widespread sexual assaults on Oct. 7 are a subject of fierce attacks by anti-Israel editors like those two.

One of the pro-Hamas operatives working the article, "FourPi," smeared "Screams Before Silence" by putting it in the "propaganda technique" category. What makes this ironic is not just this editor is themselves a propagandist, but that they had no right to make this edit, or to edit Wikipedia at all. They are a "sockpuppet" of a banned editor and were themselves blocked a few days after making this edit.

The documentary is smeared as a 'propaganda technique'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me

Pro-Hamas Wikipedia Collaboration Site Covers Its Tracks

 

Pro-Hamas operatives 'celebrate' being uncovered—shortly before covering their tracks

After my blog post "How Pro-Hamas Operatives Collaborate to Rig Wikipedia" appeared on Aug. 30, there was a predictable period of "Baghdad Bob"-type bravado among the subjects of the article. 

"Useful and moderately well researched," said one pro-Hamas user on the Discord.com "Wikipedia collaboration" board, which is used to coordinate anti-Israel editing on Wikipedia. Another, "Ashar," bragged about knowing a fine point of Wikipedia editing that stumped me (and would stump most Wikipedia editors) which is why I could get a previous version of a page that had been deleted. 

I still don't know. But Ashar does. That's because Ashar is obviously a longtime Wikipedia editor, as are almost all of the pro-Hamas Wikipedia editors profiled on this blog. They've been around for years, "owning" articles that they want to control, intimidating and bullying other editors and administrators.

The Discord site is strictly against Wikipedia rules, which of course do not apply to pro-Hamas Wikipedians any more than campus rules apply to the pro-Hamas rioters at universities. By engaging in such offsite coordination, they seek to pepper Wikipedia with pro-Hamas propaganda, and rig discussions that govern the editing and sourcing of articles, such as the "reliable sources" discussion that notoriously denigrated the ADL. 

The "resident expert" of the offsite collaboration channel, "Ïvana," began covering her tracks, deleting her posts, but that was only the beginning of the belated coverup.

"Pbiggar," coordinator of the "Techs for Palestine" Discord channel, which includes the Wikipedia collaboration site, posted as follows: "I read the article and have to say I wasn't aware the Wikipedia project was doing so well! Very informative, and congrats to all involved!" But then he added: "I guess we'll have to reconvene this a bit more privately—will check with leaders to figure out the next steps."

Oh really? "Leaders"? "Pbiggar" is described in his profile as "founder" and "project leader" of the "Tech for Palestine" Discord channel. Who does he report to? Whoever they are, they gave him a directive: close off the Wikipedia Collaboration channel to public view. He proceeded to do just that a few hours ago:

Note the excuse: "doxing." According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, "Dox" means "to publish private information about someone on the internet, without their permission and in a way that reveals their name, where they live, etc." There has been no doxing in this blog. As they have done with other words in the English language such as "massacre," which they have re-defined to mean "anything Israel does," Wikipedia's pro-Hamas operatives have redefined "dox" to mean "describing what we do."

The "leaders" to whom "pbiggar" reports don't want the outside world, and especially Wikipedia's timid, avoidant "administrators" and "arbitrators," to know what they do. But it's too late.  

Here's a partial list of the users who participated in the Discord Wikipedia channel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Samisawtak 

discord username: samerbhh_83208

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ZionistHater 
discord username: zionisthater22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/WamelSlice

discord username: wamelslice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ïvana

discord username: ivana_0808

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:FDC0:7CE2:445B:7612:F5F0:C84 
discord username: r.2717

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rw29014life 
discord username: artemisbow99

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HadyaWaqfi

discord username: hadyawaqfi8150

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tashmetu

discord username: tbd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Isoceles-sai 

discord username: isoscelesprime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Discourseofcourse

discord username: pomme.de.discorrdde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ummahrican 

discord username: ummahrican

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ronnie_larko

discord username: tbd

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sarachicad 
discord username: sarachicad_88189

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Shushugah 

discord username: shushugah

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spécial:Contributions/Baderdean

discord username: .baderdean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tashmetu 

discord username: agent_na 

I guess I should feel flattered that they covered their tracks after my blog, since I did not "break the news" of the existence of the Discord channel. Jewish Insider, a respected newsletter, did that in June.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember that comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. They can be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me