Sunday, September 29, 2024

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.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have been going to pretty much any page related to Israel or Lebanon or Iran or Palestine or Islam or Judaism or Jewish culture and reading thru the edit history and checking every single edit by the anti-israel editors. On more than one occasion I've seen an edit be titled something like "tidying up" or "improved phrasing l" where they changed just a few words and remove just a few but by doing so completely change the framing ot the situation l. And they do this little by little, over time, and this has been going on since the 2010s, maybe earlier. There's too many of these tiny edits to even count, but the editor history is there and im hoping someday someone can find them all. It's a boiling frog that won't jump out of the pot. Death by a thousand cuts. They've been slowly shifting the narrative inch by inch.

Why does a pro-Palestine or anti-israel person have any business editing articles about Jewish cultures or Jewish hereditary conditions? What business do they have arguing with jews with lived experience?

Anonymous said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetic_studies_of_Jews

Looking at the talk history of this page. Especially the very last talk with Andre. BUT ALSO Note: Iskander, Onceinawhile, Nishidani.

Visit the edit history. Note: Andrevan. Is this Andre? Note: the amount of anonymous edits that are clearly someone with experience. Note the anonymous edit "undo long time racist zionist sock" in May 2024.

Note an edit by Nishidani changing ancient jews to ancient Israelites. Why would someone anti-israel do this?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_studies_of_Jews&diff=prev&oldid=1221846498

This is just one page and just some examples. Really look thru the talk and edit history. There's more.

Anonymous said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence

Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence, of course, has Nishidani all over it, obsessed in the talk pages and edits. He recently decided he "gives up" on the page yet can't help but get in the last word.

Anonymous said...

Makeandtoss is determined to make the title of this page into "Israeli appropriation of Arab cuisine".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Politics_of_food_in_the_Arab-Israeli_conflict

He's also all over Israeli food which was relatively untouched for most of its history until February 17th 2023... Suddenly...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=1139922163

Onceinawhile edits with a simple "remove synth and add source". It's reverted. iskander edits again.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=1139946668

Iskander then adds a whole section about appropriation.

This user then edits the lede and completely changes it narrative. There's no push back at this point on anything anymore since they managed to get Tombah banned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=1183556199

This user, TheDoodbly, has an interesting track record of editing Ledes. Just look at this lede edit for the Holocaust...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=1182282174

Speaking of the Holocaust page... Jayden466, owner of wikipediocracy, has don't A LOT OF EDITS and some interesting edits that seem to really want to downplay the Holocausts impact on jews...

Anonymous said...

Biased administrators is 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."

Anonymous said...

I checked the page about pogroms on Wikipedia and was surprised the talk page was super empty. Go to check the edit history and for some reason on this page zepcifically specifically there is a bot that is constantly archiving the discussions, most of which are just invalidating Jewish Pogroms and downplaying October 7th. Why?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pogrom&action=history

Anonymous said...

Started going thru archived Talks on various pages and it's a goldmine. There's too much to even capture. Full manifestos.