Wikipedia Editing: A Tool for Hating (Zionists)
When Jerusalem tech guru Miriam Schwab agreed to sign on to a workshop focused on influencing Israel’s online presence, she didn’t expect to end up on The Lede, a New York Times blog, slugged as an Israeli working to smite domestic and foreign online enemies via “Zionist editing” of Wikipedia entries.
Schwab, founding director of web presence agency Illuminea, is an unassuming, self-described “tech nerd.” She’s all about helping companies improve their online presence using today’s tools: Internet, blogging, social media sites, etc. So when organizers of the Yisrael Sheli movement and the Yesha Council of settlements put together a seminar to help counter anti-Israel sentiment online, Schwab agreed to take part:
It was specifically to influence Wikipedia, and directly linked to the post-Gaza flotilla fallout. There weren’t enough people to counter the anti-Israel narrative, so in keeping with Wikipedia’s “neutral point of view” policy, the aim was to have more people learn how to counter the bias.
Wikipedia, which literally means “quick encyclopedia,” is based on an open-edit model compiled by unpaid volunteers. Anyone can log on and input or alter entries — but the bar is high: Wikipedia editors adhere to strict guidelines surrounding neutrality and accuracy, and not knowing the guidelines or how to technically work with the system can result in material being changed or booted off the site.
“Accuracy” however — among Wikipedia editors — is apparently in the mind of the beholder. And some say Wikipedia’s balance is skewed, particularly in entries relating to the Mideast:
Editors are known to take sides. There’s a Palestine work group, and they hold a Palestinian point of view. Israel’s work group is pro-Israel. There’s anti-Scientology, and pro. That’s Wikipedia. Unless it’s math or science, there’s no truth with a capital “T.” People are on Wiki with agendas and political views.
To offset agendas, Wiki editors vote on popular or hot topics, and decide on the site’s language and tone. But to be allowed to weigh in on official usage — whether or not to refer to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, or to term Judea and Samaria “occupied territories” — an editor has to maintain 100 edits per month.
It’s hard work, and it was a complete mystery to me in technical terms. Wikipedia isn’t standard HTML.
So some cowardly little anti Israel or anti Semitic vermin writes Ms. Schwab a little hate letter or a poison pen e-mail, well maybe she could consider the source and treat the mail or letter as a compliment, considering the source.
I have written all sorts of pro Israel stuff and been denounced in pretty vulgar and bitter terms in return, which is just fine with me, because I am fully aware of the sort half human brain dead creatures who are jostling me.
The few I reply to, I explain that their hatred not only vindicates my pro Israel and pro Jewish positions, but that I also consider their hatred to be a badge of honor.
Ken, I have to agree with you (again). Being the focus of hatred is a badge of honor. Some moslem took my handle Oscar the Grump and turned it into oscar le grouche. After that, he put all kinds of poison on this blog site using that name. Its funny how fast he dropped the name after I changed mine. I must have scored often and well. The issue wasn’t my name, it was always getting the truth out.
I remember all the people who tried to put facts about Obama onto Wikipedia during the election, and even after. The facts would vanish within minutes. The left must have had thousands of nerds deployed to detect changes in wiki entries concerning their man… it’s no surprise that they have the same sort of focus on all of their high visibility issues.
I cannot help but be struck by their group instinct to control the information the public can receive. It is pure Stalinism, pure Mao-bama. and no, I do not believe instructions are issued and a conspiracy launched. No instructions are needed. The left knows what to do and does it. It is a predictable human behavior to control information when one cannot win arguments and prevail in an ‘open information’ context.
Stifling of information is the act of the morally corrupt and desperate, not to mention the proof of the soul of a tyrant.
I say let the battlefield of ideas be open to all, let the battle be vigorous, and let the winner be the ideas with the greatest merit.
The left says “STOP PROPAGANDIZING YOUR EVIL RIGHT WING PRO JEW AGENDA!!”
Or, more accurately, they don’t actually say it, they just remove public access to your argument.
I don’t use Wikipedia, even when it would be convenient and on a non-political topic where bias shouldn’t be a big issue. And whenever anyone else cites Wikipedia to me I ask for a real information source. Maybe we can kill, marginalize, or change it that way. But even if we can’t accomplish any of those things, we certainly don’t have to support it or expose ourselves to it.
Neither do I !! The experience of the 2008 election process, and several other topics has soured me to all things wiki. A great chunk of Wiki is pretty much agenda-driven. I won’t use Wiki for any of my blogs, comments or bulletin board posts. There are numerous online sources for practically every branch of knowledge, including even the arcane. Truth be told, Wiki is sort of like TV guide: a quick fix for the mentally lazy, brain-dead people who can’t search smart.
Stunned by the volume of hate?
Never in my memory have conditions been made so comfortable and ripe for overt Jew hating.
Unless it’s math or science, there’s no truth with a capital “T.”
The same can be said of the NY”T” .. although I would even question their take on math and science.
Yea, try “Big Bang” theory, or “Global warming” for instance and see how quickly even so called “science” will receive the same bias and treatment as it is usual in politics…
maybe because no one in the whole world, no-one, uses “Judea and Samaria” instead of occupied territories…
Thank you, Epimenides.
It is the correct term, historically and practically, but has been undercut by decades of promotion of the Palestinian narrative – including by the Israeli political establishment. The entire two-states-west-of-Jordan solution might have been workable if the overall territory was larger than a postage stamp, and if the ‘Palestinians’ had been, are or might become a nation at some point – and a nation that is prepared to coexist with its neighbor to the west. Since none of that is true, it is time to scrap the idea of a Palestinian state. That is the real problem. Should the Arabs truly be ready for peace with Israel, then Jordan and Egypt, with the backing of Saudi Arabia, could negotiate a solution with Israel.
Would the ‘Palestinians’ be happy with such a solution? I personally don’t care, since they have proven themselves 1) not a nation 2) inherently dangerous to Israeli civilian life and Israel’s existence. The Arab don’t care about a Pal state; it is a technique and a wedge to harm Israel and to avoid responsibility. The fact that the West has gone along is criminal; that the Israeli leadership has ignored the wishes of its people on this existential matter is also a big deal, to be resolved within Israel.
‘Judea and Samaria’ are the most accurate terms. Jordan conquered the ‘West Bank’ and named it that. The term ‘Palestine’ should have been nullified with the Arab decision to destroy Israel in 1947. The world is very busy as ever with attempting to stop truth, all in the name of self-aggrandizement and attempts to undo the Jewish nation’s revival. The world hates truth.
Actually, UN used this term for a while (given that it’s historically accurate term) – but later due to political reasons it was redubbed as “West Bank of the River Jordan” – clearly a name which no one had been used ever before.
I never use the term West Bank, I rather like using Judea and Samaria, or Yehuda and Shomron, but they are a a little wordy. Now I try to us the more neutral expression Disputed Territories. I think it is little less provocative but far more descriptive, even though it is inexact since it also includes the Golan Heights which is only marginally associated with the Palestinian situation.
Its not clear where Ms Schwab received her hate messages. On her talk page in Wikipedia or in You Tube?
Even Jimmy Wales (founder of WP) on his talk page has commented that there is anti-Israel bias and problems with controversial articles are discusses there regularly. He cant even get the “community” to call Climategate by that name!
However, there is a real loathing to install any kind of official oversight and lose the “anyone can edit” basis. The belief and hope is that, with time, it will all eventually sort out.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/24/connolley-may-be-out-at-wikipedia/
Wiki is garbage for anything other than simple facts that can’t be politicized…
Here is one of WIKI’s respected member editors-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RolandR – If you or anyone attempt to put PRO ISRAEL corrections you will be banned, blocked. Any attempts to correct the drivel known as WIKIPEDA will be met with ORGANIZED community resistance (HAMAS pays it’s editors to work on WIKI fulltime)
It is the perfect TOOL for TOOLS- imagine- you too can re-write history- you too can convince people of the evils of Zionism and the value and depth of love that is ISLAM- yes the perfect medium for all totalitarians and socialist engineers– 1984 is here
Why should wilipedia hating Jews surprise anyone? Look how Obama treats Israel, one of our allies. Can anyone recall Obama ever talking about Jesus Christ, show me the video tape of Obama doing that. If Obama or anyone else believes in the Islamic Quran, then they are taught to hate Jews and nonbelievers. Read it for your self!!
I don’t care what anyone says about Wikipedia , I have found it incredibly biased towards anything Middle Eastern, Islamic or Muslim. Long before anyone bothered to write about it I lost complete faith in it and don’t trust the content..
Conversely it is negatively biased against anything to do with Jews, Israel, Zionists etc. It appears to completely tow the Democratic party line.
That’s just my opinion (and the truth) and I’m sticking to it.
It is so laughable, and yet for the same reason so sad, that so many people treat Wikipedia as a serious source of information.
It is a grand compendium of shared ignorance.
It is a glorified bathroom wall.
Be nice to have a serious adult fact based site like wiki but with say, some boundaries.
Real facts can’t be changed or edited, and so shouldn’t be. For a site wanting to deliver facts, and if allowed to be fully open, idiots will screw around, just because they can.
However the need for it is not that urgent IMHO because all one has to do is search around the net already, not that hard to find information.
I had originally thought wiki was about putting up external links of information, as factual as possible, in an organized quick link resource index; not rewriting everything that goes on the site and now with such obvious political bias, that’s why I’ve stayed away from using it altogether.
Have notice that Leftists are addicted to their wiki links like greenies to global warming, same, same.
Wikipedia is a bucket of vomit. I refuse to allow my students to use it as reference, and one would believe that all respectable institutions would have similar standards, yet it isn’t so – if more people abided by such peer-review standards and self-policing, like a true intellectual, perhaps outlets such as Wikipedia wouldn’t be considered an infinitely vast accumulation of garbage.
Anything to do with politics or history in Wikipedia is extremely questionable. It’s like the claptrap taught in school and college. No facts are allowed to change the desired “narrative”.
No one is forced to accept wiki-nonsense. Develop an alternative.
As the parent of two school age chidlren I can tell you that if you hand in a paper with a Wikipedia citation you will automatically fail. No real academic or information seeking individual sees Wiki as a true informtion source. That being said it is important that those who want the truth to come out do attempt to correc mistakes anywhere and everywhere. The cyber wars of information are horrible and the cyberhitmen are nasty and relentless. Just watch what happens on twitter to those who support Israel…But we need to stick to our internet guns because that is where the war for the hearts and minds of the future generation is being waged
It isn’t hard to edit Wikipedia. Someone edited the Eldridge Cleaver entry. It used to start with,’Eldridge Cleaver was a Author and Civil Rights activist. Someone changed it to the truth. ‘Eldridge Cleaver was a Serial Rapist who bragged about raping Black and White women as a political statement in his book Soul on Ice. I suggest everyone start monitoring Wikipedia.
It’s a driftin’ time, people are facinated with screens, no idea what’s on the other side – Song writer Greg Brown