User:Eleland/Response to accusations of Wikipedia's anti-Israel bias

The recent exposure of a Wikipedia-lobbying campaign associated with the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and resultant fallout, have led numerous "pro-Israel" commentators to attack WP as biased against the Jewish State. These charges have lacked serious supporting evidence, and have a clear partisan motivation.

Background

On 21 April 2008, the pro-Palestinian Internet news site The Electronic Intifada published an article which accused CAMERA, an Israeli-American media lobbying group, of forming a secret group to manipulate the content of Wikipedia articles. The tone of the article was alarmist and implicitly overstated the actual impact of this campaign on the encyclopedia. However, the supporting evidence—selections of internal email discussions from this group—showed clearly that members of this group had violated several of the Wikipedia's core policies. Multiple lines of supporting evidence confirmed the accuracy of this e-mail archive. As a result, members of this group were sanctioned. Two editors were blocked outright and permanently, and three others were restricted from editing articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This issue has been extensively discussed on blogs and been the subject of several media reports. Two columnists in the Jerusalem Post have criticized Wikipedia for its actions in this matter and for perceived anti-Israel bias. CAMERA and allied lobbying groups have seized on this matter as an opportunity to promote their standard narrative of vulnerable Israel unable to defend itself from the massive attack of enemy propaganda. In this case the "enemy" is imagined to be Wikipedia.

Charges

This is just how Web 2.0 democracy works

This is Web 2.0 democracy. It is not perfect, and many would argue it is not even a good idea. Yet this is the model on which Wikipedia is based.

—Andre Oboler, Jerusalem Post [1]

Wikipedia is not and has never been a democracy. In a democracy, political parties vote as a bloc, wheel and deal, and act to advance their own interests and the interests of their constituencies. This is anathema to the decision-making structure of Wikipedia, in which contributors are expected to act as individuals, and at least try to advance the interests of the encyclopedia as a whole. In a democracy, parties vote propositions up or down for any reason they like; on Wikipedia, contributors are expected to back up their opinions with rational arguments grounded in Wikipedia policy and in the published statements of reliable sources. If this is incompatible with Web 2.0 democracy, then Wikipedia is clearly not a part of Web 2.0 democracy.

For example: Wikipedia's article on the Islamic prophet Muhammad contains numerous representational images of him. Such images are offensive to many Muslims. As a result, Muslim readers have heavily lobbied and petitioned Wikipedia for their removal. As of May 2008, nearly half a million petitioners have asked for this,[2] and less than 3,000 have asked for them to stay.[3] Yet they stay—because the only reasons given for removing them are incompatible with Wikipedia policy, and because Wikipedia is not a democracy.

Please explain why it is legitimate for you to edit Wikipedia but not members of Camera.

—David Shamah (correspondence)

Wikipedia is open to all; including to political activists. Members of organizations from both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian divide edit Wikipedia, including AIPAC, UK Jews Against Zionism, Electronic Intifada, and even the Israel Defense Forces. There is nothing inherently inappropriate about this.

Particular members of the Isra-Pedia group were sanctioned not for being activists, but for specific actions in violation of Wikipedia policy. One member of the group "whose actions on Wiki seem to have been independent from the discussions in the group," according to administrators, was not sanctioned.

It was unfair to ban "Isra-Pedia" and not "Wikipedians for Palestine"

...despite Wikipedia's clear policy against political advocacy, initiatives such as [...] the Yahoo group "Wikipedians for Palestine" used the Wikipedia platform to promote their ideological views, largely unopposed by the Wikipedia community. CAMERA, however, was singled out by the administrators[.]

—Honest Reporting [4]

We know which Wikipedia user accounts were "Isra-Pedia" members, and we know which of them violated Wikipedia policies. We don't know who were "Wikipedians for Palestine" (with one exception) or what was the substance of their correspondence. That's why "Isra-Pedia" members were sanctioned and "Wikipedians for Palestine" were not.

It is worth noting that a group called Hasbara Fellowships has been operating a pro-Israeli "team of Wikipedians" for nearly a year now; this group is a project of the same organization which founded Honest Reporting. Nobody has been sanctioned for being a "Hasbara Fellow," because we don't know who they are or how they operate.

As soon as "Wikipedians for Palestine" came to the attention of the broad community, we generally agreed that it was a problem. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, one of the same administrators who had applied sanctions to "Isra-Pedia" members, stated "On the face of it, I see no reason to believe that this groups isn't just as bad (or just as harmless) as the Camera one," and called for investigation. Apparently as a result of the scrutiny against them, "Wikipedians for Palestine" disbanded soon after coming to WP's attention. Dr. Oboler seems to imply that this was done to destroy incriminating evidence, but there is no way to know.

Around the time of the group's disbanding, it had 12 members, and apart from a flurry of activity after they were "outed," the group's members had exchanged exactly three e-mails in the last eight months. "Isra-Pedia" had around 30 members and exchanged 137 e-mails in the few weeks it was operating.

People commenting on the CAMERA case who were shown to be involved in this Palestinian group first proclaimed the group's innocence. Then they made a number of misleading claims off Wikipedia, stating, for example, that they "never recruited neophytes to edit Wikiepdia," and that their group is "independent and never bankrolled and backed by any organization, let alone one as well staffed and funded as CAMERA." They were challenged by an administrator to give access to their group so the archives could be checked, as was done to CAMERA. They promptly deleted the group - destroying all archives.

—A. Oboler, Honest Reporting [5]

This was all an Electronic Intifada scheme

Authenticity of evidence passed through EI

Evidence provided by an employee of a pro-Palestinian anti-Israel advocacy organization that harbors clear hostility toward CAMERA cannot be assumed to be complete or undoctored or accurate.

—User:Gni

No such assumption was made. The e-mails were examined closely and compared with activity on Wikipedia. The conclusion that they were accurate is supported by multiple lines of evidence.

The e-mails by "Zeq," who was the group's self-appointed strategist, showed detailed and specific knowledge of Wikipedia disputes that User:Zeq was involved in, and they matched his fairly "unique" writing style to a T. I was personally involved in some of those disputes and the e-mailer "Zeq" wrote exactly what I would expect the Wikipedian User:Zeq to write.

The editing discussed in the mailing list matches the activity going on at WP at the same time. When somebody says "I just signed up yesterday, and I corrected X and article Y," you find that yes, a new user account was created at that time and fixed X on article Y.

WP editors who were identifiable in the CAMERA e-mails were asked point-blank — is this you, are the emails accurate? — and none of them gave a straight answer. User:Zeq in particular was asked about 20 times and he only gave vague, general statements and counter-accusations about how he was being persecuted. Cade Metz of The Register writes, "[Gilead] Ini declined to say if he messages published by Electronic Intifada were genuine." This is the same tactic adopted by User:Gni, who is believed to be Ini — raise doubts about the evidence, but refuse to say whether it is authentic.

The CAMERA call for volunteers went out March 13th, a week after User:Gni had started making questionable, promotional edits to the Wikipedia article on CAMERA, and most of his changes had failed to gain wider support. The introductory e-mails specifically mentioned this article as one of Ini's areas of concern. Most of the initial discussion on the list regarded this article.

After User:Gni was blocked from editing the Wikipedia article on CAMERA, an anonymous editor began making identical edits to the article. The IP address of this anonymous editor was traced to CAMERA itself.

So to believe these e-mails were not authentic, one has to believe that someone with very intimate knowledge of obscure Wikipedia politics put together an exceptionally well-crafted fraud, somehow spoofed CAMERA IP addresses or hacked CAMERA computers in order to make incriminating edits from them, that the users maliciously targeted by this smear campaign for some reason did not deny that the e-mails were authentic, and that Mr. Ini for some reason refused to deny it either.

Activity of one editor employed by EI

Dr. A. Oboler and Honest Reporting charge that CAMERA has been victimized by an editor User:Bangpound, whom they say is acting as an agent of the Palestinian internet news agency Electronic Intifada, which broke the CAMERA wikilobbying story originally.

[Bangpound edited] CAMERA page making it say "CAMERA also attempts to use Wikipedia to covertly disseminate discredited pro-Israeli propaganda." They add that EI have e-mails that "outlined an attempt to subvert Wikipedia editorial controls and leadership structures" - an accusation designed to make Wikipedia editors see red.

—Oboler / Honest Reporting [6]

The overly hostile edits to CAMERA by Bangpound were repaired within four and a half hours. As the story developed, Wikipedia editors (including myself) updated that article with information from all sides of this controversy. As of the last version I saw, the controversy is fairly and accurately described. CAMERA staffer Gilead Ini is noted defending his group's actions, and David Shamah is quoted accusing Wikipedia editors like me of being hateful anti-Israeli propagandists.

It is instructive to examine the overall editing statistics for the CAMERA article. User:Bangpound has edited this article twice. User:Oboler, who is Oboler, has made four edits - twice as many as Bangpound. User:Gni, who is identified as Gilead Ini himself, has made fifty-five edits. And on the article's Talk page, where editors co-ordinate and compromise on editing issues, Ini/Gni has made seventy edits - more than any other editor. Gni had been editing CAMERA's article for more than a year and a half without ever disclosing his conflict of interest. And contributors have recently pointed out that Gni may have added pages to CAMERA's own website for the specific purpose of deceptively citing them on Wikipedia in order to "win" editing disputes.

So Oboler is raising alarm bells over two edits by alleged EI staffer Bangpound, one of which was problematic and lasted for less than five hours. But he seems untroubled by the fifty-five edits and twenty-three month long campaign of deception by confirmed CAMERA staffer Gni. I believe there's a word for that.

At 14:44 they [Bangpound] edited the Wikipedia page on reliable sources adding "CAMERA cannot possibly be considered a reliable source" and again they outline their accusations. These edits appear aimed both to discredit CAMERA and to promote EI.

—Oboler / Honest Reporting [7]

In fact, Bangpound edited the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, adding a signed comment. The purpose of these noticeboards is to obtain a range of opinions from various editors to ascertain the reliability of sources. Bangpound used the noticeboard exactly as it is intended. Nobody was obligated to agree with his opinion or follow his recommendation. Other editors were free to add their own assessments, and many did, including one Israeli editor who claimed that "CAMERA has proven itself far more reliable about quotes from Arabs and Israelis or stories on Israel related topics than the BBC, the Guardian and the Independant. [sic]" If Dr. Oboler believes that Bangpound was attempting to discredit CAMERA and promote EI, does he also believe that this Israeli editor was attempting to discredit the BBC and promote CAMERA? If not, why not?

CAMERA was not acting secretly

The contention that something secret and nefarious is going on is given in the lie by this page from the Camera website, titled "How and Why to Edit Wikipedia." The page is one of the top links on the Camera home page, so it's not like the organization was trying to hide something.

—David Shamah, Jerusalem Post Online [8]

The cited page is dated 3 May 2008. The Isra-Pedia group was founded on 13 March 2008 and outed on 21 April 2008; sanctions were applied on 27 April 2008. The Isra-Pedia campaign was announced on a limited-distribution list intended to co-ordinate CAMERA activism; e-mails from the list repeatedly urged members not to reveal their affiliation, and to take measures to disguise their partisanship. List members even contemplated creating user accounts which would not edit anything related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, accumulate experience and community respect, and be promoted to administrator — then be used to apply blocks and sanctions to editors perceived as anti-Israel.

When I pointed this out to Mr. Shamah in correspondence, he responded that "Anyone who knows the work of Camera would not be surprised at its interest in editing a publicly-editable encyclopedia to ensure historical accuracy," and linked to a page containing CAMERA's general recommendations to student activists. [9] He also made vague accusations about me somehow having it in for the Jews.

<eleland/talkedits> 06:51 GMT, 1 November 2024