Wikipedia Cultists Trash Ed Martin Article

Ed Martin's Wikipedia article before and after he antagonized the Wikipedia Cult

I have a lot of trouble getting people to grasp that Wikipedia is a cult. That is essential to understanding Wikipedia—why it is rejects external criticism and internal reform, and why it is essential to revoke its parent foundation's tax exemption. 

This is not a new insight. It has been made for literally decades, and from all points on the political spectrum. In 2005, a writer for the far-left British organ The Guardian pointed to "the quasi-religious fervour surrounding the 'rightness' of Wikipedia," and said the following.

What I realised. . . is that Wikipedia, and so many other online activities, show all the outward characteristics of a cult. Which, by my (computer's) dictionary definition, means "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object; a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister; a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing; a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society, 'a cult film'."

One of the characteristics of cults is revenge against its enemies. 

In Scientology, it is known as "fair game." Individuals so targeted may be "deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed." 

Wikipedia can't deprive its enemies of property but it can savage their reputation, and do so easily. That brings us to the illustration at the top of this article. 

On the left is how the article on Edward R. Martin Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, appeared on April 24, just before he sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation posing pointed questions and raising the possibility that the Foundation's tax exemption may be yanked. My post on the letter, suggesting how the Foundation would respond if it was honest, is here.

On the right is how the article appears today.  In a short period of time, Martin has gone from obscure politician to Enemy of the Wikipedia Cult. 

At the very top of the article he is now smeared, labeled a fascistic, "far-right" politician, with "a history of making incendiary claims about opponents and causing ethical and legal controversies."  

The trashing of Martin's article is consistent with the generally hysterical reaction to Martin's letter in Wikipedia forums, such as this one. 

Today Jewish Insider reported that "23 bipartisan members of Congress told the Wikimedia Foundation: ‘It is clear that more needs to be done to ensure Wikipedia remains free of bias, antisemitism and pro-terrorist content.’" While these congresspeople have the safety of being in a group, don't be surprised if they are singled out for Wikipedia smear jobs.

But that's just collateral damage. The main takeaway here is not that Wikipedia editors are defensive, thin-skinned boobs, which many of them are, but that Wikipedia, as a cult, is not capable of fixing itself in any meaningful way. 

I made that point in a post a few weeks ago in which I said that the ADL, which had just issued a report on Wikipedia, "naively disregards Wikipedia's rigid, cultlike culture."

I went on to say:

I like that it [the ADL] 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.

Wikipedia will never change internally. Cults don't. Wikipedia won't. It must not be subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer.

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.