..tr> ..tr> See this article online:
Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia
..table> ..table> ..tr>
by HonestReporting.com
HonestReporting exposes anti-Israel activists manipulating the online encyclopedia.
..table>
Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia anyone can edit, may strive for pure democracy, but that doesn't mean it's always fair. Our colleagues at CAMERA learned this the hard way last month when their effort to fight anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia ended in several members being banned from the site and bad press for the organization. CAMERA's campaign involved recruiting volunteers and instructing them in the basics of Wikipedia participation. The Palestinian advocacy group, Electronic Intifada (EI), however, branded the effort "a plan to rewrite history" and filed a bitter complaint with Wikipedia administrators, resulting in unusually stiff penalties for the CAMERA volunteers involved.
EI's chief evidence against CAMERA was a series of private e-mails exchanged by CAMERA staff and their volunteers. An EI staff member infiltrated the group and turned the e-mails over to Wikipedia, claiming they revealed a plot by CAMERA to manipulate Wikipedia and to pass off "crude propaganda as fact." An investigation followed, resulting in two indefinite bans and several shorter-term bans for CAMERA members.
A closer look at Wikipedia's inner workings, however, reveals there is more to the story. Research carried out by Social Media expert Dr. Andre Oboler, a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor, reveals that it was EI, not CAMERA, that manipulated Wikipedia to achieve its ideological goals.
Dr. Oboler and HonestReporting also found that despite Wikipedia's clear policy against political advocacy, initiatives such as "Wiki Project Palestine" and 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 in order to "send a strong message to lobbying groups, campaigns and other advocacy groups."
WIKIPEDIA AND THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW
With nearly 60 million visitors a month and 10 million entries in 253 languages, Wikipedia has become a primary resource for students across the world. A Google search for almost any topic will return a Wikipedia entry at or near the top of the list of results.
But despite its popularity, Wikipedia does not always provide the most accurate information. What sets the encyclopedia apart from other sources is its reliance on the "wisdom of crowds" - allowing any user who spots an error in any entry to simply change it himself, anonymously if he chooses.
Not surprisingly, this feature turns controversial topics such as "Jerusalem" or "Terrorism" into battlegrounds between people with sharply different agendas. To counter the problem, Wikipedia established the neutral point of view (NPOV) as one of its guiding principles. The NPOV policy is meant to ensure all sides are presented equally on a topic until a consensus eventually emerges, a process that can take many months of intense debate.
Unfortunately, NPOV is another noble goal not always applied equally by Wikipedia users. Dr. Oboler tracked the activity of Wikipedia user Bangpound, an individual revealed to be EI staff member Benjamin Doherty, who appears to be looking to spin EI's view of CAMERA's campaign. Here is how Dr. Oboler describes his activity:
At 14:08 on April 21 EI boasted publicly to someone thought to be a member of CAMERA's staff that CAMERA and its editor have been exposed. He links to the EI article about CAMERA [accusing CAMERA of a Wikipedia conspiracy]. At 14:26 the same person edits the 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. At 14:44 they 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. It was clever marketing as well as clever advocacy, and it took under half an hour. [For the full transcripts of these edits see Dr. Oboler's research on Zionism on the Web].