When It Comes to anti-Zionist Poison, Wikipedia is 'The Encyclopedia NOBODY Can Edit'

 

Don't you dare remove that foul lie from the Wikipedia Zionism article.

It's not a revelation to point out that when it comes to Zionism, Wikipedia is as chilly as a Mt. Everest base camp. But it's actually worse than most people realize. Worse than even I realized, and I broke the story of how the Wikipedia Zionism article had been turned into anti-Zionist propaganda by the "Wikipedia Flood" of Israel-hating editors.

On Sept. 13, an administrator added to the article a "hidden note" decreeing that a sloppily worded, poorly sourced nugget of anti-Zionist propaganda—Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible—was henceforth baked into the first paragraph of the article.  

That sentence, which accuses Israel's founders of ethnic cleansing in Wikipedia's voice, unattributed, is there to stay. And if you don't like it you can pound sand or, even less productively, you can argue it out on the "talk" page of the article, which is tightly controlled by anti-Zionist editors.

The wording of that untouchable sentence has been widely derided as making a mockery of history. 

In his excellent Jewish Journal article on the Zionism article, journalist Aaron Bandler pointed out that this sentence was described as "false" by Middle East historian Asaf Romirowsky, who heads Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and the Association for Study in the Middle East and North Africa. 

And in my blog item I pointed out:

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. 

Prof. Romirowsky elaborated in the Jewish Journal article that before Israel was established, “the Jewish community was willing to accept whatever proposal was offered to them, even the desolate land itself, just the idea of having a homeland.”

Pretty bad, huh? Well don't try to fix it. When it comes to articles in what Wikipedia calls the "Palestine-Israel area," editors must have 500 edits and at least thirty days under their belts before they can edit. But not even that helps when it comes to that false statement. As a practical matter, for that sentence Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia nobody can edit." 

The "hidden note" in the lead of the Zionism article

In an action that received little attention outside Wikipedia, on Sept. 13, a volunteer administrator, ScottishFinnishRadish, inserted a "hidden note," invisible to the public but viewable by editors seeking to edit the article, essentially acknowledging the Wikipedia Flood's ownership of that passage. 

His (or her?) hidden note reads:

The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change. 

Since "consensus" is the Holy Grail of Wikipedia, anyone trying to change it without "talking it out" on the stacked-deck "talk page" will find that, at a minimum, he or she is wasting his or her time, and risks getting tossed out of Wikipedia or otherwise flogged. 

That was precisely the fate of an editor who raised the issue on the "talk page" a few days ago. He is being shot down in flames, and the "hidden note" has of course been cited. Like all discussions in this topic area, this one is going on and on and on.

What makes all this even more Orwellian is that the hidden note was not the work of one of the anonymous anti-Israel operatives of what I call the "Wikipedia Flood," who work 24/7, successfully, to turn Wikipedia into an anti-Israel propaganda machine.

Ironically ScottishFinnishRadish is actually one of the better administrators willing to venture into this topic area, and is unpopular with some of the very worst Flood editors for failing to do their bidding to their satisfaction. As far as Wikipedia administrators go, he is one of the "good guys."  

But his job is to enforce the rules, and ScottishFinnishRadish knows perfectly well that on Wikipedia, the Flood calls the shots.

Postscript: Note the comment that came in concerning SFR after I posted this. The commenter makes a good point. I may have been too charitable in calling them "one of the 'good guys.'"

A Timely Study Emerges as Wikipedia Weighs 'Israel/Palestine'

 

I've been offline for a while, neglecting this blog, and during my absence a number of things have happened.

Two very important ones are related:

1. Wikipedia's highest tribunal, its "arbitration committee" or "Arbcom," has  voted to open a "case" to consider complaints that anti-Israel and sometimes antisemitic editors have bullied their way into dominating a vast swath of articles on Israel and the Gaza war. The "case" will commence on November 30th.

2. Just as the Arbcom case is about to commence, Canadian researchers have released an impressively thorough study quantifying the behavior of anti-Israel editors. 

A National Post article on the study, by its authors, can be found here. Their analysis "reveals alarming patterns of bias that can cascade through the digital information ecosystem, infecting everything from search engine results to academic citations to social media posts and even AI training data."

I wrote about the arbcom case when it first commenced back in August, and updated several times. As I've described, it began promisingly, with postings by several respected editors pointing out the pattern of anti-Israel "ownership" of articles, much of it (as I revealed in this blog), coordinated offsite in violation of Wikipedia rules.

What I call the "Wikipedia Flood" of pro-Hamas editors fought fiercely against Arbcom's taking up the case, gaslighting and producing reams of verbiage and meaningless "data" to prove that the blatant anti-Israel propaganda in the artcles, and the misconduct that produced it, is just a figment of everyone's imagination.

The phony "data" they generated was crucial, as arbcom often takes a nerdy approach and is swayed by "data," no matter how bogus.

The arbcom case drew outside attention as it dragged on for months, especially articles by Aaron Bandler in Jewish Journal, which raised the stakes and made it harder for arbcom to just sweep it all under the rug. 

Revelations about outside coordination, by this blog and Ashley Rindsberg in Piratewire, made it still harder.

In voting to go ahead with the case, the arb "Moneytrees" specifically pointed to the canvassing:

I also want to look at offsite behavior and canvassing, which has been chronic for a while and been difficult to address with our current processes. The scope should be an examination of how to address these offsite issues, and how we can empower admins to act on them.

And now comes this latest development, the Canadian study, just as the case is about to begin.

The study was conducted by Neil Seeman, a Senior Fellow at Massey College. the University of Toronto, and Jeff Ballabon, Senior Counsel for International and Government Affairs at the American Center for Law and Justice. These are serious researchers, which Wikipedia usually hold in higher esteem than journalists. 

In their National Post article, they wrote:

We conducted a comprehensive analysis of Wikipedia’s structural bias, using as our case study the page about South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Our findings unearthed patterns of systematic bias that can shape and contort public understanding of critical global issues.

Through a detailed examination of over 1,000 page revisions, we identified several key mechanisms through which bias can enter and metastasize inside Wikipedia.

Our analysis identified 27 highly active editors who contributed significantly to the page. These weren’t hobbyist contributors — they averaged over 200,000 edits across Wikipedia, suggesting they’re highly experienced editors with considerable influence over content. The bias expression analysis identified patterns of anti-Israel bias among power-user editors, highlighting how personal viewpoints can seep into supposedly neutral content.

While none of the researchers' findings will come as a surprise to readers of this blog and the other coverage, their work dovetails neatly what I've been documenting sinch March, and what Aaron and Ashley have written about.

Their findings concerning editor behavior are significant because, remember, Arbcom's jurisdiction is confined entirely to that realm:

What’s particularly remarkable is these biases contradict the spirit of a “wiki” — an ethos of bottom-up collaboration and respect expressed toward all its volunteer editors. These biases include: elite theory bias, that is, a preference for academic sources over grassroots knowledge; high-contributor frequency bias (disproportionate influence of frequent editors); citation gaming (strategic use of citations to push particular viewpoints); temporal bias (over-representation of recent events or perspectives); institutional capture systematic bias (from organized editing groups); language complexity bias (use of complex language to obscure bias); and source selectivity bias (selective choice of sources to support particular views).

So there it is, all laid out. The arbcom case won't commence until the end of November, so you can bet that the Wikipedia Flood--and their sponsors and backers--will be minutely examining the Canadian study to rip it to shreds and extract as much blood as they can from the editors who have sought to counter them.

The Flood is tightly organized offsite, experienced and well-established onsite. They've achieved their objective since 10/7, spreading poison, turning Wikipedia into a propaganda website, and there's no reason to believe they won't win again, study or no study.

Why? Because Wikipedia belongs to them.

Wikipedia needs to be starved of money and discredited. This new study will go a long way toward achieving the latter objective. 

Wikipedia Decrees: Israel Has No Right to Exist

 

Existence? Not for Israel, not on Wikipedia 

One of the cliches of the Arab-Israel conflict is that the "good guys" and the "bad guys" roughly line up over the question: "Does Israel have a right to exist?"

Only the most violent rogue states and antisemitic terrorist groups says it does not.

Wikipedia says it does not.

That emerged recently in one of Wikipedia's numerous administrative boards. An administrator named "ScottishFinnishRadish," known usually as "SFR," sought advice from other admins as to whether a user should be sanctioned over that issue.

The user, "Nableezy," is a veteran anti-Israel editor who I've mentioned in several previous blog items. He contended on an article discussion page that Wikipedia cannot say that Israel has a right to exist (see above) in its own voice. That's just a "claim." 

SFR wrote:

I've opened this report to get input from other administrators about the diffs above that say Wikipedia cannot presuppose[s] Israel has a right to exist and that it is something that should not be put in wikivoice. This is a diff showing the content at issue.

In as much as any nation has a right to exist, I think the very least we're looking at a WP:FRINGE viewpoint being used to argue content and against a provided source. I know that I've blocked editors for similar comments on both the existence of Palestine and Israel. I am interested in what other administrators think about these diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What followed was what usually happens when anti-Israel editors are brought up on charges. Members of the "Wikipedia Flood" of anti-Israel editors, and their allies, piled on. 

Of course Israel has no right to exist! No country does, they argued, so therefore Wikipedia cannot say in its own voice that Israel has a right to exist. Even raising the issue is wrong!

Nableezy won the dispute without much effort.

SFR succumbed, withdrawing his query with a humiliating apology to Nableezy.

You really have to savor the double standard at work here.

Wikipedia editors have ruled multiple times that Israel can be raked over the coals in Wikipedia's own voice.

Wikipedia says in its own voice that Israel is an apartheid state.

Wikipedia says in its own voice that Israel commits genocide in Gaza.

Massacres? Of course. There's an entire Wikipedia category of massacres committed by those dastardly Israelis.

All in Wikipedia's voice.

But you daren't say, in Wikipedia's voice, that those genocidal, apartheid-committing massacre-perpetrators have a right to a state of their own. That's disputed. That has to be attributed. It's very much in doubt 

And after reading the way Israel, its people and history are described in thousands of articles by Wikipedia's anti-Israel editors--who dominate the articles on Israel and Jews--you might feel the same way if you approached the subject cold.

You might be persuaded to support Hamas yourself. 

Or worse.

Dispatches From the Wikipedia Battlefield

In response to the torrent of tips and suggestions I've been getting from readers, including Wikipedia users, I'm commencing a live blog, "dispatches from the Wikipedia battlefield," describing articles and internal organs that are under assault by the "Wikipedia flood" of anti-Israel and sometimes pro-Hamas and antisemitic editors.

These will consist of links and brief descriptions. Updates will appear at the top.  Suggestions should be sent to me via Twitter DMs or email. 

November 9

 

A brave and possibly suicidal Wikipedia editor, "BilledMammal," has petitioned the site's "Arbitration Committee" to do something as appealing to them as swallowing rusty nails. 

This optimistic person wants the lassitude-addicted arbs to take up offsite coordination of pro-Hamas editing, which I wrote about here and in a follow-up post, and which Ashley Rindsberg examined in his Piratewires article.

The Flood is of course outeaged! Why this request is itself a violation of Wikipedia rules, which they clutch tightly to their bosons. Et cetra.

The arbs are not going to examine a thing, of course, except maybe, at most, drop-kicking BilledMammal out of Wikipedia. He hasn't done anything wrong but they'll think of something. 

Follow the charade here.

November 5

Anti-Israel editors, horrified by the very existence of the Wikipedia and Antisemitism article, have gone offsite to dox its creator. They are doing so on "Wikipediocracy," a Wikipedia-focused message board where Flood members are active. The doxing effort began in a public area but moved into a private forum, where the sleuths are batting around the possible identity of the culprit.

Wikipediocracy likes to think of itself as an "investigative" website, and they've created a puffy article on themselves on Wikipedia. But its members are mainly focused on settling old scores and, as in this case, targeting pro-Israel editors. 

November 4

An article on Wikipedia and Antisemitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_and_antisemitism has sent the Wikipedia Flood into hysterics. Delete it! Delete it! Merge it! The article has multiple issues! Don't expect it to last long.

November 3

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=1255134766&oldid=1254649211

The empire strikes back.

The "resident expert" of the Discord offsite anti-Israel coordination effort, "Ïvana," rants and raves and deflects in response to Scharb, while "Sean.hoyland," the Wikipedia Flood Chief Meaningless Numbers-Cruncher, offers up "data" in support of his comrades.

November 2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral)

Arbcom continues to consider whether it will take up a complaint against pro-Hamas editors. This has resulted in a torrent of word-salad filibusters, meaningless "data" and gaslighting from the editors involved and their allies. At the current time they're one vote away from taking the case.

But there have been some gems amid the rubble. Recently one editor, "Scharb," has posted a detailed statement concerning the offsite coordination of pro-Hamas editing, which I wrote about here and in a follow-up post, and which Ashley Rindsberg thoroughly explored in his Piratewires article.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Statement_by_Scharb 

permalink https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FClarification_and_Amendment&diff=1254649211&oldid=1254590332

Arbcom is anxious to steer clear of the so-called "Israel/Palestine" subject area, knowing full well that pro-Hamas propagandists will bombard them with an avalanche of bullshit. By raising the offsite coordination of editing, "Scharb" has made it harder for them to shirk their duty. Stay tuned.

How Wikipedia Erases Arab Terrorism

The Wikipedia article on Black September does not describe it as a terrorist group

According to Wikipedia, Black September, the notorious terrorist group that kidnapped, tortured and slaughtered Israeli athletes at the 1972 is not a terrorist group.

Hamas, the bus-bombers and butchers of 10/7, is not a terrorist group as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

But Irgun, the Jewish pre-state paramilitary group? Now, that's a terrorist group.

The following is a guest blog exploring how Wikipedia's pro-Hamas editors have ensured that articles on terrorist groups never actually say that they are terrorist groups—except when they are Jews.

*                               *                               *

Since the early days of Wikipedia, millions of words have been written to debate whether a person or organization is correctly described as a terrorist. 

The only source of authority is the Wikipedia Manual of Style whose Word to Watch policy advises against using the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" in an article "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." 

This means that people, organizations, and actions are not supposed to be described as terrorists or terrorism in "wiki-voice," but rather only with the source of the designation in the text (e.g. "The New York Times described the operation as 'terrorism'"). 

Although this policy is an absurd exercise in moral relativism, it is also frequently ignored when it comes to Israel and its enemies.   

Here is the starkest example: the opening sentences to the Wikipedia Articles on "Zionist Political Violence" and "Palestinian Political Violence:"   

Zionist Political Violence:
Zionist political violence refers to acts of violence or terrorism committed by Zionists in support of establishing and maintaining a Jewish state in Palestine. These actions have been carried out by individuals, paramilitary groups, and the Israeli government, from the early 20th century to the present day, as part of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

Palestinian Political Violence: Palestinian political violence refers to actions carried out by Palestinians with the intent to achieve political objectives that can involve the use of force, some of which are considered acts of terrorism, and often carried out in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Common objectives of political violence by Palestinian groups, include self-determination in and sovereignty over all of Palestine (including seeking to replace Israel),[7][8] or the recognition of a Palestinian state inside the 1967 borders. This includes the objective of ending the Israeli occupation. More limited goals include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and recognition of the Palestinian right of return.  

An attempt in April, 2023 to change the name of the article to "Palestinian Terrorism" was defeated in short order.   

This discrepancy is also apparent when comparing articles about Palestinian terrorist organizations to Israeli groups: The Ledes for the Wikipedia articles on Hamas, al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and even Black September use the same misleading formula to inform the reader that these are terrorist organizations and always at the very end of the Lede: "[Group] has been designated a terrorist organization by [Countries]." Nothing more.  

The article about Black September is particularly ironic: the Lede won’t call Black September a terrorist organization, but does immediately note that its attacks "led to the creation or specialization of permanent counter-terrorism forces in many European countries."   

Now let’s take a look at the Wikipedia article on the Irgun. Here are the first three paragraphs from the Lede:   

The Irgun (Hebrew: ארגון; full title: Hebrew: הארגון הצבאי הלאומי בארץ ישראל HaIrgun HaTzvaʾi Ha-Leumi b-Eretz Israel, lit. "The National Military Organization in the Land of Israel"), or Etzel (Hebrew: אצ״ל) (sometimes abbreviated IZL), was a Zionist paramilitary organization that operated in Mandatory Palestine between 1931 and 1948. It was an offshoot of the older and larger Jewish paramilitary organization Haganah (Hebrew: Hebrew: הגנה, Defence).[1] The Irgun has been viewed as a terrorist organization or organization which carried out terrorist acts.[2][3][4][5  

The Irgun policy was based on what was then called Revisionist Zionism founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky.[6] Two of the operations for which the Irgun is best known are the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946 and the Deir Yassin massacre that killed at least 107 Palestinian Arab villagers, including women and children, carried out together with Lehi on 9 April 1948. 

The organization committed acts of terrorism against Palestinian Arabs, as well as against the British authorities, who were regarded as illegal occupiers.[7] In particular the Irgun was described as a terrorist organization by the United Nations, British, and United States governments; in media such as The New York Times newspaper;[8][9] as well as by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,[10][11] the 1946 Zionist Congress[12] and the Jewish Agency.[13] Albert Einstein, in a letter to The New York Times in 1948, compared Irgun and its successor Herut party to "Nazi and Fascist parties" and described it as a "terrorist, right wing, chauvinist organization".[14] 

(Boldface added) The difference in emphasis could not be clearer. Fully half of the Lede about the Irgun is dedicated to connecting it to terrorism, compared to a mere sentence for any of Israel's enemies.   

Even a mild tempering of Israel's demonization cannot be tolerated. For about five years, the Lede to the Irgun artucle included the statement that "the Irgun went to considerable lengths to avoid harming civilians, such as issuing pre-attack warnings; according to Hoffman, Irgun leadership urged "targeting the physical manifestations of British rule while avoiding the deliberate infliction of bloodshed."

These were statements from scholarly works published by Bruce Hoffman and Max Abrahms, two respected academics who specialize in terrorism and provided a bit of balance to the Lede about the Irgun. They were removed by well-known anti-Israel editor IOHANNVSVERVS because they did not conform with his prejudices and the already biased article about the Irgun:   

"Bruce Hoffman, whose understanding of the Irgun is fringe and false, contradicted by the rest of the information in this article as well as the page List of Irgun attacks" Hoffman's expertise seems to be about terrorism in general and not specifically the Irgun or Israeli/Palestinian history."  IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC) 

Let’s turn to some Wikipedia articles about specific terrorist attacks:   

The list of terrorist attacks committed against Israelis is (sadly) so long that I could not look at each article, but many of them have had the word "terrorist" removed from the Lede or the rest of the article and the incident is referred to as a "suicide attack" or “suicide bombing" and the terrorists are dubbed "militants” or “assailants"    

Now let’s look at the article for the King David Hotel Bombing. Here’s how it starts:  

The British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, housed in the southern wing[1] of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, were bombed in a terrorist attack[2][3] on 22 July 1946, by the militant right-wing[4] Zionist underground organization Irgun during the Jewish insurgency.[5]   

When it comes to Jewish groups, there is no problem describing their acts as terrorist attacks in "wiki-voice."

One last example of the hypocrisy in play:   

In August, 2024, there was a discussion that successfully changed “Palestinian Suicide Terrorism” to “Palestinian Suicide Attacks.” In arguing for the change, notorious anti-Israel editor Iskandar323 said that “Terrorism" isn't actually a description of an event or act at all, but just a POV characterisation.”  Iskandar323 (talk) 15:03, 22 August 2024 (UTC). 

In his next comment, he expounds that  "the label is normally inappropriate for all but the broadest concept pieces where "terrorism" is the only conceivable name for the topic. Unless the first sentence goes "X is the carrying out of acts of terror by Y", the topic isn't terrorism, but something more specific. Here the subject is extremely specific to A) Palestinian nationalism and B) suicide bombings, as the first line explains, and so should be titled as such. The broader concept here is meanwhile Palestinian political violence. Per MOS:TERRORISM, labels such as terrorism should generally only by applied in the body, and with attribution, not liberally and loosely. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 

Sounds principled doesn’t it?  

Well here is Iskandar323 arguing in favor of categorizing the 2024 Lebanon Pager Explosions as “terrorism” because he is sure it is and because various others say so.  

We should mention it in the form of the WP and state that numerous international law experts have characterised it as an act of terrorism. That is uncontroversial. Many have, including also, separately, Geoffrey Nice on Middle East Eye. It was textbook state terrorism. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2024 (UTC) 

And here is his justification for descrbiing the King David Hotel Bombing as a terrorist attack in wiki-voice:  

[I]n this particular instances, the terroristic nature of the act is particularly well attested in reliable sources, our go-to, including tertiary ones such as the Encyclopedia of terrorism. This page also has a section that explains at length why the act was considered terroristic, alongside Irgun itself, which was condemned by all the authorities involved.  Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC) 

Ironically, the next comment is from Nableezy who says "Lots of attacks are called terrorist attacks on WP, so you are mistaken (just for example, Afula mall bombing, but lots more)." nableezy - 14:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC).  

The words "terrorist attack" were removed from that article in March 2024. 

The Spartacus Factor: How Wikipedia's Pro-Hamas Editors Control Articles

Very few established Wikipedia editors want to be Spartacus.

Recently I received an email from a longtime former Wikipedia editor. I'm taking the liberty of replicating a passage from their email, redacted to ensure their anonymity:

I'm actually a former editor of Wikipedia. . .  After discovering the anti-Israel activity, I had multiple negative encounters with the propagandists you write about, most notably [redacted], and arguing with these people was driving me crazy, plus the fact that they seem to have unlimited time and energy, and the ability to get - and get away with - whatever they want. I realized I was up against an immovable evil, so I left the entire project, for my own sake. I definitely don't have the mental energy to do what you're doing!

Note the text that I've put in italic boldface, as I think it is crucial. 

I thought of that email when I read Ashley Rindsberg's well-researched, exhaustively documented article that just came out in an online journal called the Pirate Wires. Ashley, author of an excellent book on the New York Times, has written other articles about Wikipedia, and it is a superlative website, well worth a subscription. His work on Wikipedia is right up there with Aaron Bandler of the Jewish Journal, who has been all over the story of Wikipedia's gross anti-Israel bias for months.

What made Ashley's article especially valuable is how he delves into and quantifies the techniques used by what I call the Wikipedia Flood—the well-coordinated coterie of anti-Zionist and sometimes antisemitic editors who control every single article that has anything to do with Israel, even remotely. 

Opponents of the Flood are overwhelmed, exhausted, and ultimately worn out because the pro-Hamas editors effectively "game" Wikipedia's arbitrarily enforced, often unenforced policies. Ashley points out:

To evade detection, the group works in pairs or trios, an approach that veils them from detection. They also appear to rotate their groupings for the same reason. Likewise, one or more of the group’s editors can come to the aid of another in the case of pushback. In many instances, editing by the group is made to articles focused on historical issues, where a single editor might be patrolling for this kind of abuse, making it easy for two dedicated users to overwhelm or exhaust the lone editor.

Yes, "lone editors" like the one I quoted at the top of this post.

The Flood consists of many editors, but Ashley documents how it comes down to a hard core of 40 experienced editors.  Experienced editors are held in high regard by Wikipedia. When acting in concert, they invariably get their way when they are persistent, motivated, ideologically single-minded and well-organized.

Ashley describes how that works, with charts identifying the editors in questions, all familiar names to readers of this blog.

To skirt [Wikipedia polices], the pro-Palestine group leverages deep Wikipedia know-how to coordinate efforts without raising red flags. They work in small clusters, with only two or three active in the same article at any given time. On their own, many of these edits appear minor, even trivial. But together, their scope is staggering, with two million edits made to more than 10,000 articles, a majority of which are PIA or topically associated. In dozens of cases, the group’s edits account for upwards of 90% of the content on an article, giving them complete control of the topics.

The numbers are indeed staggering:

In August, an analysis of the intensity of editing in PIA between January 2022 and September 2024 found that the top contributor to PIA by number of edits, a user called Selfstudier, made over 15,000 edits in the space in that period. Iskandar323 contributed over 12,000 edits to PIA articles in the same period. Other members of the pro-Palestine group are equally prolific, with top contributors including CarmenEsparzaAmoux (8,353), Makeandtoss (8,074), Nableezy (6,414), Nishidani (5,879), Onceinawhile (4,760) and an admin called Zero0000 (2,561).

. . . . All together, the top 20 editors of this group made over 850,000 edits to more than 10,500 articles, the majority of them in the Palestine-Israel topic area, or topically connected historical articles.

These astonishing numbers quantify why when you see the "talk" pages of article there is either no dissent at all to their "POV-pushing," or when there is dissent it is isolated and ineffective, a case of one editor is up against many. 

That's no accident. As Ashley points out, and as I have documented, they "swarm" over articles due to offsite "canvassing." That is against Wikipedia rules, like everything else they do, but is unenforceable when it takes place offsite.

Sure you can fight them. But that can end your Wikipedia career or get you kicked out of the topic area. By coordinating their actions offsite, the Wikipedia Flood is able to gin up a "consensus" whenever they so desire. Fighting them means that you are against "consensus," which means that you are being "disruptive." Fight too hard, refuse to surrender to the Flood, and you get blocked or banned from the topic area entirely.

It's a numbers game, as I have said over and over again in this blog. 

It's a bit like Spartacus and his small band of slave rebels. Remember what happened to Spartacus? He and his band were overwhelmed by the Roman legions. It made for a great Kirk Douglas movie, but remember how it ends, with everyone crucified on the road to Rome? Every single one dead.

No experienced editor wants to be Spartacus. They like editing Wikipedia. They enjoy it. Maybe there is another area of interest that holds their interest. Maybe they are beekeepers or mainly focused on editing articles about their hobbies or their hometowns. I guarantee you that it is much more satisfying to edit in an area where other editors are pleasant and cooperative than editing in a topic where the other editors would happy if you burned to death in real life.

To avoid that fate, editors drop out of Wikipedia entirely or, more commonly, stop editing in what is known on Wikipedia as the "Palestine/Israel" topic area. 

The same desire to avoid unnecessary conflict, expenditure of energy and fatigue results in the vast majority of Wikipedia's volunteer "administrators" avoiding the subject area—except, in almost all cases, for administrators who back up the Wikipedia Flood. As I've described, one admin, "Vallereee," improperly uses her administrative tools on behalf of the Flood.

That same conflict-avoidance imperative has resulted in the Wikipedia "Arbitration Committee" showing extreme reluctance in tackling the issue. Same reason: they are volunteers, they have other things to do, and life is short.

One "arbcom" case involving the same pro-Hamas editors mentioned in Ashley's article has been dragging on since August without resolution. In fighting that case, the Flood has used the same "swarming" tactics they've used in getting their way throughout Wikipedia.

Read Ashley's article for more. And be sure to follow Aaron Bandler's great work in the Jewish Journal. They are the only journalists who are following this story closely. Hopefully there will be more.

Did you know.... that Wikipedia calls Yahya Sinwar a 'humble' 'politician'?

The Wikipedia article on the 'politician' Yahya Sinwar

Here is the Yahya Sinwar article as it appears at this writing, prior to official confirmation of Sinwar's death. Note that the lead section, which is supposed to summarize all of an article's most important points, buries that he was architect of the Oct. 7 massacres.

The "politician" description was added in this edit on Nov. 1, 2023, and has remained the description of the terrorist mastermind, on the highest-visibility website in the world, ever since.

As far as I can tell, it has never been seriously challenged.

Sinwar was "humble," says Wikipedia

An editor did object to Sinwar being referred to as "humble," but that description of the butcher of Oct. 7 remains in the article.

The article still contains the following text, which reads as if it came from a Hamas dispatch: "Despite his leadership among prisoners, Sinwar remained humble, sharing cooking duties and other chores with junior inmates as well as making knafeh for fellow prisoners, fostering camaraderie."

Did you know.... that Wikipedia Lies About the 1948 Arab Assault on Israel?

The Arab armies did not aim to crush the new State of Israel in 1948

Inaugurating a new feature! 

Just as Wikipedia has a "Did you know?" feature on its main page, this blog will occasionally feature brief items on the work of the many anti-Israel editors, the "Wikipedia Flood," that have turned much of Wikipedia into pro-Hamas propaganda.

Today: 

Did you know that Wikipedia lies about the 1948 Arab-Israel War? That its article on the war says the Arab armies invaded not to crush the new Jewish state and commit genocide, but rather to delicately claim what Arab Palestinians were entitled to under the 1947 U.N. partition plan that they rejected?  

This one I've taken off Twitter/X and a post by @ReinceNiebuhr.

Reince writes:

it really awful what an antisemitic cesspit Wikipedia has become when it comes to israel articles

Here they claim that the Arab states were only invading territories allocated to Arab state (before acknowledging Tel Aviv was the target)

And then tops it off w “Jewish Bribes”

Nominations for future "DYK" blog items will be gratefully appreciated. Just drop me a line at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me. Anonymity guaranteed.