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'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.

The Only Way to Fight the Wikipedia Flood

You can fight the flood.

The "Wikipedia Flood" of pro-Hamas editors claimed an important target recently, the Anti-Defamation League of the Bnai Brith. I won't belabor the point as it has been amply publicized, but I do want to amplify some points I've made in the past about how to fight the Flood. There is only one way, and the ADL situation shows why that is so.

The ADL responded for a time with fire and brimstone, appearing on MSNBC and other news outlets. The US Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organization sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation expressing "concern and dismay with Wikipedia’s attack on ADL’s reliability on the topic of antisemitism and other issues of central concern to the Jewish community."

The Wikimedia Foundation responded by telling the ADL and the Foundation to drop dead. It did so politely, by hiding behind Wikipedia policies that it knows perfectly well are fictitious:

 In a response to an inquiry from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the foundation did not address the content of the letter, but appeared to reject its very premise. 

“Unfortunately, this letter represents a misunderstanding of the situation and how Wikipedia works,” Maggie Dennis, vice president of community resilience and sustainability at the Wikimedia Foundation, said in an email. ”Firstly, it’s important to note that the letter was addressed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees; 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.”

Note what I put in boldface. What the Foundation failed to point out, because it would upend its entire argument, is that "community" on pages concerning the Arab-Israel conflict can be defined as "the quantity the anti-Israel editors who can be rounded up at any given time."

So how to counter this? There are ways other than what I'm about to suggest, such as pressure on the Foundation, cutting off donations, lawsuits, so on, but the simplest and most effective way is to do what the anti-Israel editors. Create a flood. Pro-Israel editors need to volunteer for Wikipedia and contribute. It's that simple. 

This will require work. Remember that to contribute in the subject area one must be "extended confirmed." That means that you mut have at least 500 edits and an account age of 30 days or more.

So create an account and edit, following these principles:

• Don't pad your edits. While any edit you perform counts toward the 500, don't "game the system" by editing in trivial fashion (like changing a comma to a semicolon over and over again). Become a genuine contributor. Edit in areas outside what they call "Israel/Palestine" subject matter. Edit on anything that interests you outside that area. Your hobbies, your areas of academic interest, anything. These should be genuine contributions, showing interest in areas other than I/P.  

• Learn the ropes. Wikipedia has multiple, conflicting rules and processes. Learn them. 

• Don't rush to edit on I/P.  Don't start editing on the Gaza War when you have 501 contributions and 30.5 days on Wikipedia. Take your time. Remember that new editors in the topic area are put under a microscope. Hostile anti-Israel editors and administrators will scour your contributions and ban you for "gaming the system" if you suddenly switch form writing about calculus to Hamas atrocities. 

• Don't stop editing on non-I/P subjects. If you do, you will be treated with suspicion and hostility as a "special purpose account" and it will be said that you are not there to "improve the project." "Project" is Wikipedia-speak for "Wikipedia."

• Be an asset. Improve articles in non-I/P areas. Introduce sources that were not previously used.

That should get you started. Now, once you've established yourself as a constructive new editor, this is how you should enter the I/P maelstrom after you have a lot more than 500 edits and 30 days under your belt, and after you've been making great contributions in other areas:

• Do it gingerly. Concentrate on one article or discussion. Don't wade into fifteen articles and discussions. Take it slow.

• Be nice. Remember what I said about learning the ropes? By now you have. Remember to be civil even if it hurts. If other editors are not civil there is nothing you can do about it. Don't be provoked. Remember to be civil everywhere. In discussions, edit summaries. Remember that anything you do that isn't civil (or is civil for that matter) can will be used against you by the pro-Hamas crowd.

• Don't complain. If you're not treated properly, don't go rushing to "Arbitration enforcement" and other such "drama boards" that theoretically are supposed to deal with editor misbehavior. They can be turned against you due to what is known as the "boomerang," which happens on a whim sometimes, if the Flood can pile on and accuse you of being a bad actor.

• Keep a record of misconduct by others. When others are uncivil or otherwise violate Wikipedia rules, be sure you have a record of it so you can use it against them.

• Don't even think of sockpuppeting. Wikipedia is alert to editors creating phony accounts. Create one. Create more and you will be discovered. Don't think you can get away with it.

• Don't be overtly partisan. Watch your language. Act neutral. Pretend that you don't have strong feelings. Don't give vent to your feelings about Hamas, Sinwar, etc.  If you do, you will be topic-banned. Anti-Israel editors will be warned for making such comments. You will be sanctioned. 

•  Be conscious of the double standard. Pro-Israel editors are treated far more harshly than anti-Israel editors in any given set of circumstances. That's why it is important to obey the rules scrupulously and keep a record of misconduct by others. 

• Don't be dragged into long, repetitive discussions. Anti-Israel editors do that to wear out the other side. Make your point and do something else. That is what experienced editors do. Newbies get sucked into ridiculous, circular arguments.

Now this doesn't mean that you should be a "boy scout." You can bet the pro-Hamas editors aren't. They are almost certainly coordinating their efforts privately via email. You should too.  

This is known as "canvassing," which is contrary to Wikipedia rules, so be sure that you do so with people you know personally in "real life." Do not communicate with other editors using the Wikipedia email system. While the contents of your emails supposedly can't be read, a record is kept of who you are emailing through the system. That is none of their business.

This is not an exhaustive list of dos and don'ts, but it should be enough to get you started. I will be adding to this from time to time. Feel free to comment with questions and suggestions of your own.

Lastly I have a suggestion for the ADL. You have formidable research capabilities. Use them to help pro-Israel editors stem the Wikipedia Flood. Have your researchers produce sources for use in contentious articles and make them publicly available.

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

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