Hey, Did You Know the Arab World Opposed Nazi Antisemitism? So Says Wikipedia

Arabs were against the Nazis antisemitism! They just loved Jews (to death)

One of the joys of reading Wikipedia is that you are exposed to novel versions of history. They aren't true, but they are always different, and they are never surprising when it comes to Jews, Israel, Zionism and Arabs. 

Jews are bad. Israelis are really bad. Zionists are colonial oppressors. Arabs are wonderful people. Tolerant as hell. Love Jews.

A good example is the Wikipedia article "Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world." Its current incarnation can be found here. 

In the 1940s, the Arab world was a hotbed of pro-Nazi sentiment. That is what actually happened, according to every historical account that's worth more than its weight in spit. 

But that is not what the lead of this article says, because (see the illustration at the top) it was sanitized into a fairy tale by the editor "Smallangryplanet," a rising star in the ranks of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel and antisemitic editors.

Thanks to their deft editing last December 30, which has never been reversed, the article now omits a sentence saying  "One foundation of such collaborations [between the Nazis and Arabs] was the antisemitism of the Nazis, which was shared by some Arab and Muslim leaders, most notably the exiled Palestinian leader, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini."

"Smallangryplanet" also added "anti-Semitic" to a whitewash sentence at the top of the article, which says that "In terms of confrontation, the Arab intellectual elite was very critical towards Nazism, which was perceived as a totalitarian, racist, anti-Semitic and imperialist phenomenon."

Yep, the Arab world just hated antisemitism! It was just brimming with tolerance back in the 1940s. Woke as hell.

Wikipedia is that bad. Truly. No matter how much you find Wikipedia insufferable, it's not enough.

The ADL Wikipedia Report is a Missed Opportunity

The ADL should have named rogue editors and recognized Wikipedia's rigidity

The ADL has produced a comprehensive report on Wikipedia. You can access it here. A press release summarizing it is here. ADL director Jonathan Greenblatt expounding on it is here.

When I first saw this, I exulted on X: "Bravo. The ADL has a first-rate research apparatus and this is precisely the work it should be doing. But don't let this be a one-off. Make Wikipedia research a regular feature. Devote resources to it." I still feel that way, in general.

But then I read the report and realized that it is a missed opportunity. The ADL report, while it points to real issues in a very good way, sometimes fails to grasp how Wikipedia operates. And in one major respect, naming rogue editors, it pulls its punches.

Here is an "executive summary," as the ADL would put it.

No Wikipedia accounts are mentioned. 

According to the report: 

ADL has found clear evidence that a group of at least 30 editors circumvent Wikipedia’s policies in concert to introduce antisemitic narratives, anti-Israel bias, and misleading information.

These 30 editors were much more active than other comparable groups of editors, on average, by a factor of at least two, based on total edits made over the past 10 years. [bold typeface in original]

This finding was followed by some charts and statistics showing how much damage these editors are doing. That is great. As I have pointed out on several past occasions, Wikipedia loves statistics. Its editors, administrators and "arbitrators" (its ruling body) include a lot of nerds and nerds love to "quantify" things. They love "data" even when its utterly bogus and proves nothing. In this instance, it proves a lot.

Had the editors been named, this data could have been used to discipline, and perhaps even ban, the editors named. Failure to include this information is inexcusable.

The ADL naively disregards Wikipedia's rigid, cultlike culture

I agree with most of its recommendations, especially for people outside Wikipedia. 

I like that it recommends that search results downgrade Wikipedia. Its recommendations on LLMs ("large language models" used in artificial intelligence) are excellent. I think its recommendations for the government are also great. I hope the ADL makes a major effort to implement all of these suggestions.

I also generally agree with its recommendations for Wikipedia. But there's a problem.

The problem is that they fly in the face of the reality of Wikipedia, which is that it is a cult, hidebound and rigid, self-governed by a great mass of anonymous people, that it rewards groupthink and mediocrity, is intrinsically and structurally left-leaning and antisemitic, and anxious to retain all these repulsive qualities. 

Sure, I want Wikipedia to make major structural changes and I also want pigs to fly.

There is no question that the ADL is right. Wikipedia should not decide discussion closures by majority vote. I agree that "decisions on controversial content that become the subject of talk page discussions should be decided on the merits by specially designated closure editors."

But that kind of major change is not going to happen. Never. Forget about it. Why? Because this kind of change is decided by majority vote. Catch-22. It will never, ever, be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation and the WMF does not even have the power to do so if it wanted to, which it does not.

The suggestion for "experts" becoming involved in the process is not going to happen for that reason, and that is good, because it is a bad idea. As the ADL itself points out, the website is beset by pro-Hamas editors. So if "experts" are brought in, those "experts" would be pro-Hamas as well.    

And then there's this recommendation:

Wikipedia should evaluate their existing tools against inauthentic behavior and foreign influence to determine whether they’re adequate to address current issues/concerns. Wikipedia has a reputation for effectively safeguarding against this type of risk, but is vulnerable to such actors introducing bias, especially over the long term and on lower visibility pages. 

Whoever wrote this has no idea what they're talking about. 

Wikipedia has no tools "against inauthentic behavior" and it absolutely does not have a "reputation for effectively safeguarding against this type of risk." That's rubbish. This is a real problem, to be sure, but Wikipedia does nothing to address it, certainly regarding state actors from the Middle East.

I still stand by what I said on X. I'm glad the ADL came out with this report. I'm glad the ADL is publicizing it. I hope the ADL throws more resources into this. I hope they make it a major, regular effort. Keep it coming.

But please, ADL, name the damn editors. And try to show more savvy about how Wikipedia works. 

Also, tell people not to contribute to the Wikimedia Foundation.  Drive that point home. Tell people that constantly, especially toward the end of the year. 

Wikipedia views you as an enemy. They have screwed you over. Reciprocate.

Wikipedia Highlights Fringe 'Jewish' Tokens in Khalil Article

Mainstream Jewish reaction to Khalil takes a back seat

At every major anti-Israel and antisemitic demonstration since Oct. 7, pro-Hamas crazies have put fringe, self-hating "Jewish" tokens on prominent display. 

It's how they fend off accusations of antisemitism. "How can we be antisemitic? Look at all our pet Jews!" The strategy works just fine with sympathetic journalists.

I haven't surveyed media coverage, but the Hamas strategy is working just fine on Wikipedia, which has created a typically slanted article on Mahmoud Khalil, the pro-Hamas activist the Trump Administration is seeking to deport. 

A prominent subsection is set aside for "Reactions," and Jewish groups are given prominent play. But not actual Jewish groups representing the majority of Jews, but rather tiny, pro-Hamas front groups like Jewish Voice For Peace, IfNotNow, and, bizarrely, the Putin stooge Jill Stein. 

An incomplete list of non-fringe groups supporting the move, like the ADL, is shoved off at the very end.

There are two principal takeaways from this ongoing propaganda fest, and they are deeply discouraging:

1. This article is an example of Wikipedia's ingrained anti-Israel and antisemitic bias, but it was not a product of what I call the "Wikipedia Flood," the small but productive coterie of pro-Hamas editors. The editor who created the article, "Francisdpas89" is a new editor who  started out the article in a perfectly inoffensive manner. 

2. After the article was created, the article was slanted in a team effort by a bunch of editors I've never heard of. In other words, it was not a product of the "Flood." It is just a good example of how Wikipedia works every day. If I'm mistaken, someone should bring that to my attention, but I'm not seeing a small group of activists at work here, just a large number of editors for who would never dream of tokenizing any minority group but Jews.

That's what people don't understand about Wikipedia. It is a group effort. Responsibility is diffused, accountability is nonexistent. Efforts to take a top-down approach, such as by writing letters of complaint to the Wikimedia Foundation or bringing cases at "Arbcom," are doomed to failure. Efforts to pitch in and edit are doomed to failure as well, because then the editors will get sandbagged by anti-Israel and antisemitic administrators and editors.

So what can one do about this kind of thing? A lot, but it takes work.

As I've said before, the only way to deal with Wikipedia is to defund it, to end Section 230 so that it no longer has legal armor, and to destroy its reputation by spreading the word about its ingrained, institutional antisemitic and anti-Israel bias.