Wikipedia displays a pattern of obsessive hostility toward Israel.
It is a systemic, institutional problem, caused by a large and unrestrained group of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas editors. I call them the "Wikipedia Flood," the online counterpart of the "al-Aqsa Flood," the name Hamas gave to its murderous onslaught on Oct. 7, 2023.
This is a longstanding problem, and it has been exacerbated by the Gaza war. Anti-Israel bias is so extreme that it frequently veers into antisemitism.
This is a major problem. Wikipedia is one of the most highly trafficked and influential websites around, with 9.5 billion visits in December 2023 alone. It is a major target of anti-Israel activists, and their work has been a resounding success.
The purpose of this blog is to shed light on Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias on a continuing basis.
Key issues
▶ Every single article related to the Arab-Israel conflict is distorted to reflect an anti-Israel point of view.
▶ Anti-Israel sources such as Al Jazeera, The Guardian and The Intercept are considered "reliable" and are used to provide the raw material for articles, while pro-Israel sources are downgraded, and some are prohibited.
▶ Wikipedia processes, its "administrators" and "arbitrators," are unwilling to curb the depredations of pro-Hamas activist "editors."
▶ Activist "editors" create articles whose sole purpose is to disseminate anti-Israel hate.
▶ Pro-Israel editors are banned from articles related to Israel on drummed-up pretexts, or kicked off the website, if they complain about anti-Israel editors.
▶ Article discussion ("talk") pages are cesspools of crude anti-Israel hate. Oct. 7 atrocity denial, especially rape denial, is rife. This creates a hostile atmosphere for Jewish editors.
For the anti-Israel activist "editors" of Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia everyone can edit" is just another form of warfare. Their job is to fill it with anti-Israel polemics and do their best to oust pro-Israel editors on trumped-up charges.
Some pages – such as the sections on Palestinian history – are incoherent and ahistorical garbage. The pages on Jews and antisemitism only help to spread a hatred of Jews. Those who set up the rules for Wikipedia may have anticipated acts of correctable terrorism on their pages – but did not foresee the war of attrition. Nobody was going to come along and attempt to rewrite history in a day. The best strategy is taking the current mindset apart brick by brick. Patiently over a number of years. That is what is happening with Wikipedia. . . .
Every edit by someone with a Zionist leaning is placed under a microscope, if it gets past the gatekeepers at all – and then immediately contrasted with the placement of an anti-Zionist counter-argument.
In 2017, blogger Dani Ishan Behan stated:
Israel-related articles almost uniformly emphasize the Palestinian and Arab narrative while marginalizing the Jewish one. Rudimentary facts about Israel’s history: including Palestinian massacres on Jewish civilians, Arab intransigence being a primary factor in the conflict’s intractability, and even the Jewish people’s origins and indigeneity to the land of Israel are either downplayed or outright erased.
The reason this can happen is that Wikipedia is rigged.
Wikipedia has rules that ostensibly prevent this kind of thing from happening, they require neutrality and fairness, and
it has been reported that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is pro-Israel. But Wales does not run Wikipedia. That is in the hands of largely anonymous volunteers, who let Wikipedia be gamed by anti-Israel editors.
Even the most well-intentioned volunteer, unpaid "administrators" and "arbitrators" (a kind of super-administrator) are manipulated by pro-Hamas activists who dominate the articles on Israel and the Gaza conflict.
Wikipedia rules protect anti-Israel activists
Here's an example of how the rules are rigged to protect anti-Israel activists whose sole purpose is to turn Wikipedia into a propaganda organ:
The "user pages" of anti-Israel editors, such as the one maintained by the pro-Hamas activist "Nableezy," frequently proclaim their support for terrorism. This contributes to the anti-Israel atmosphere that pervades Wikipedia. Here is a "user box" on Nableezy's "user page."
This pro-terrorist 'user box' is explicitly permitted by Wikipedia.
The rules governing user pages prohibit them from containing "very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing." They also ban advocacy or support of grossly improper behaviors with no project benefit. The latter are defined as "statements or pages that seem to advocate, encourage, or condone these behaviors: vandalism, copyright violation, edit warring, harassment, privacy breach, defamation, and acts of violence."
But "acts of violence" are specifically defined to exempt support for Jew-killers:
("Acts of violence" includes all forms of violence but does not include mere statements of support for controversial groups or regimes that some may interpret as an encouragement of violence.)
Since Wikipedia allows editors to openly proclaim their support for Jew-killing terrorist groups, Jewish editors find themselves rubbing elbows on article talk pages with people like Nableezy who proclaim that they would be happy to see Jews murdered, their children and parents kidnapped, their daughters raped.
According to one article from 2019, "recent information suggests that Nableezy works for The Electronic Intifada," a virulently anti-Israel website. It goes on to point out that Nableezy is especially active in trying to thin the ranks of the opposition by gaming the Wikipedia enforcement mechanisms. Nableezy has continued in that activity since that article was published in 2019, gaining in power and influence.
A numbers game
Anti-Israel editors realize that winning the propaganda jihad on Wikipedia is a numbers game, and they see to it that the number of pro-Israel editors remains small. They do that by intimidating and bullying "the opposition" and seeking tenaciously to get them banned from articles on Israel and from the site itself. "Topic bans" of varying length are commonly handed out by administrators, acting at the behest of anti-Israel editors who compile laundry lists of trumped-up grievances. The administrators who oversee such things have broad power to act as they like, making up the rules as they go along.
On Wikipedia, the "community" rules. What "community" means in practice is "whoever shows up for a discussion." Pro-Hamas and anti-Israel editors have the numbers, and they "flood" article discussion pages where required, gathered in requisite quantities by email canvassing campaigns. One of the grievances frequently used to get pro-Israel editors topic-banned is that they act contrary to the phony "consensuses" established by anti-Israel editors.
Gaming "consensus" rules is especially problematic in determining which sources can and cannot be used, and how they are used in articles. "Reliable source" discussion pages and an alphabetized list of "perennial sources" show how anti-Israel sources are invariably usable, while pro-Israel sources are downgraded, thanks to the efforts of anti-Israel and far-left editors.
Al Jazeera and Amnesty International are fine. Fox News is not OK for "politics," so its reports on Israel are not usable for sourcing. The Nation is fine. Jacobin is fine. Jewish Virtual Library is not NGO Monitor is not.
There is nothing on Wikipedia to stop aggressive, pro-Hamas editors from gaming Wikipedia's processes. When whistleblowers attempt to call them on their tactics, the whistleblowers themselves are punished. This is known on Wikipedia as "boomerang."
David Collier describes as a "war of attrition" in which the far more numerous anti-Israel editors invariably come out on top.
Not a new subject
Wikipedia's systemic anti-Israel bias is not new. Here is a rundown of the literature on the subject.
In November 2019, a website called "The Israel Group" profiled anti-Israel editors. It was written about in the Washington Free Beacon:
"Wikipedia's Anti-Israel Editors Unmasked" The website subsequently went dark. Its most recent web page, archived by the Wayback Machine in December 2021, can be found
here.
The editors profiled there were as follows, in the order that was provided as of the most recent archived page, with the worst at the top:
The "five worst" as of 2019: Brendan McKay aka User:Zero0000, User:Nableezy, User:Huldra, Peter Nicholas Dale aka User:Nishidani, User:Onceinawhile
"Dishonorable Mentions": User:Sean.hoyland, User:Malik Shabazz/MShabazz (has since left Wikipedia), User:Snooganssnoogans (now known as User:Thenightaway, and largely avoids editing on Israel),
Although the article is dated, it provides a good resource on the tactics employed by anti-Israel editors. Since that website appeared, the cast of characters has grown considerably larger.
In addition to the David Collier and Dani Ishai Behan articles cited above, in 2008, the media watchdog HonestReporting published an article titled
"Exposed – Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia," which cited
this article describing manipulation of Wikipedia by the antisemitic website Electronic Intifada.
Lastly, CAMERA– Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis– writes about Wikipedia periodically.
One place you won't find meaningful examination of Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias are Wikipedia criticism websites, "Wikipediocracy," "Wikipedia Sucks" and "Wikipedia Review," which are dominated by anti-Israel editors.
What can be done?
Behan concludes his 2017 Times of Israel blog as follows:
So what can be done about this? The answer is simple: everybody who cares about the truth must create an account, learn the site’s rules, and push back vigorously against those who would defame or delegitimize the Jewish people on the world’s largest online encyclopedia. Do not be intimidated by the task at hand, for there is too much at stake.
He is absolutely correct.
Our advice:
Register an account at Wikipedia and play by the rules. The pro-Hamas editors will not. But even so, you will have an impact. The more editors push back against anti-Israel bias, the more likely they can have impact.
Don't let anti-Israel editors provoke you into breaking the rules. They will goad you, insult you, when they see you as a threat. Ignore them.
Be patient. Stay away from subjects that are subject to "Arbitration Committee" restrictions on the "Israel-Palestine area," which were crafted by anti-Israel editors to restrict editing in those areas to registered accounts more than thirty days old with 500 and more edits.
Be sure to edit a wide variety of subjects. Edit articles about your interests, whatever they may be. The less controversial and less political the better. Editors who edit only to counter anti-Israel bias are far more likely to be singled out for punishment by the easily manipulated administrators.
Even if you cannot directly edit because your account is not old enough, you can request edits even if you do not log in to an account. But it is better to register an account, start editing and wait a month.
About us
We have no affiliation with any persons or organizations cited above, or any of the persons we cite in the review of literature above. We are paid by no one, this is not how we make our living, so our contributions here may be sporadic, and may be discontinued or interrupted at any time. We are neither a volunteer with nor affiliated with any organization outside Wikipedia.
Comments are open and can be anonymous. Tips, critiques, and suggestions are welcome, and I am receptive to guest blogs as well. Theycan be anonymous or otherwise. Just email me at WikipediaCritic at proton dot me
