 |
| 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.
1 comment:
Unfortunately for Wikipedia, there's something big looming on the horizon. A few days ago there's a role account, which is presumably run by a Wikipedia criticism forum Wikipediasucks.co, posted a link on Lemmy to a PDF document describing a court case in which the toxic editors lose a defamation lawsuit brought upon them by a victim.
The victim was a female artist and professor in Israel and the harassment incidents took place on Hebrew Wikipedia in which a number of toxic editors ganged up on her because of jealousy. Actually the PDF document itself is hosted on foundation.wikimedia.org.
I can't directly link the document here because it did not redact the home addresses of both the victim and the toxic editors and it will fall afoul of Blogger's rules if you directly link it. The relevant Lemmy thread was removed days later, presumably because of that reason. However if you know where to look you'll find it.
According to the document, the harassment campaign reportedly lasted for seven years, mounted by toxic editors against the poor woman to destroy her reputation and even limit her personal liberties. In order to achieve their evil aims the toxic editors have gamed the system, perhaps including the Hebrew Wikipedia equivalent of "sockpuppet investigation pages", "ANI noticeboard" and so on, to tarnish her reputations and incite bystanders and onlookers against her. This definitely lines up with what Jennsaurus is saying about the serious scandals on Wikipedia.
Ironically one of the harassers is an old woman who had spoken about Wikipedia's systemic biases in Haaretz. Those toxic editors even went so far to harass the victim in real life by persuading some institutions to deny her access to the facilities. Looking at the exhibits of defamatory sophistry by the toxic editors is like entering a so-called "reality distortion field".
That's definitely not an isolated case, at least according to Jennsaurus. She allegedly discovered an incident where a woman in Mexico was stabbed outside her home by an attacker who was likely hired by a toxic administrator.
Jennsaurus claimed that two of the worst cases she's found so far were CommanderWaterford who were financially targeted by toxic editors and Eustress who were reportedly subjected to an attempt to kidnap and r*pe.
https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2629&start=40#p27287
Unfortunately according to regular Wikipedia critic Ron Merkle, a friend of Jennsaurus told them that she had died in Gaza last year when she was covering news events there. But Ron and others are trying to keep the flame alive by helping her to posthumously publish the findings. Imagine the consequences if one day the NYT or others publishes them? If you know anyone who's still editing in Wikipedia you might want to start warning them to make plans to quit Wikipedia just in case.
But for the moment, too bad that Ron is shadowbanned on Reddit...
https://x.com/Liltjay08Foo/status/1900346636553060372
Post a Comment