Wikimedia Responds

I wrote in my donations post that I was no longer donating to Wikipedia.

"I have ended my donations to Wikipedia. I sent them this letter explaining: “The reason is that your editorial policies have become blatantly politicized in the worst way. I've been noticing the trend for several years but each year it had not risen to a level that obviates your value to me as a source of information. The recent assertion of "Gaza Genocide" as fact instead of a war of interpretations is the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. I will not detail the distortions, omissions, and other crimes of intellectual malfeasance that are present in that entry as you and your most trusted editors should know better.”

For this audience I will add some color about the “Gaza Genocide” article. It quotes Hamas sources uncritically. It fails to highlight the controversy around calling the Gaza War a genocide, instead treating this designation as fact. It treats the UN as an “authority” despite UNRWA staff participating in October 7th. It discusses “civilian casualties” without discussing the fact that Hamas violates so-called international law by fighting from civilian bases and without uniforms, thus guaranteeing that civilian casualties are necessary in order to fight them. I strongly recommend that they follow Larry Sanger’s advice in The Free Press to regain trust.

Here is their response:

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns.

Please know that the Wikipedia Foundation does not have an agenda other than our mission, and the idea of a neutral point of view is one of our core principles.

Incidents of biased editing on Wikipedia with regard to the Israel-Palestine conflict are well-documented and in most cases have led to investigations by Wikipedia administrators and blocking of editing accounts. You can read more about it on our political editing of Wikipedia page as well as on this more extensive Wikipedia article specific to this issue.

As you may be aware, Wikipedia is open, so anyone who wants to improve Wikipedia can contribute. Volunteer editors collaborate to write high-quality articles without bias, and from this collaboration, neutrality arises from their many voices. Today, Wikipedia is maintained by a community of volunteer editors from around the world, more than 260,000 of whom contribute every month. There is no central editorial board on Wikipedia; all edits are made by individual volunteer editors who come from virtually all walks of life, backgrounds, and experiences.

Over the years, the Wikipedia community of volunteer editors have created policies and guidelines to ensure content on the site meets high editorial standards. For content to remain on Wikipedia it must be neutral, verifiable, and attributed to a reputable source. Wikipedia’s policies are overseen and upheld by volunteer editors and administrators-- a group of more senior, trusted editors, who are selected by the broader Wikipedia community and granted with certain oversight tools on the site.

In some cases, readers may encounter vandalism or malicious edits and mistake them for political bias. Malicious edits are generally reverted quickly by the editing community.

Clicking on the ‘View history’ tab of an article will display the edit history of that article with associated comments. For controversial or contested articles, clicking on the Talk Page can often provide more context about how the article was created, and will show any debates among the editors.

There are a number of policies in place to prevent editors from “controlling” certain articles on Wikipedia or skewing information on behalf of special interests.

For example, the “ownership of articles” policy states: “No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page.” Neutrality is also a key pillar of Wikipedia-- meaning that every article should retain a balanced version of the facts without taking any particular side. Editing pages on behalf of special interests, or with which you have a close affiliation with the subject of the article, is strongly discouraged. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Terms of Use prohibit undisclosed paid advocacy of any kind.

Also, all information added to Wikipedia must meet verifiability standards, meaning that all content added to Wikipedia is founded upon reliable, independent, secondary sources. Primary sources are generally deemed unacceptable to verify material on Wikipedia (as they would be in any other encyclopedia), as they often constitute original research which is prohibited by policy. On Wikipedia, verifiability is usually addressed through the use of citations in articles so that anyone is able to evaluate where information comes from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia volunteer editors have a variety of tools, policies, and bots at their disposal to enforce these policies and keep Wikipedia a neutral, reliable free knowledge resource for all. All edits made on Wikipedia are consistently reviewed by other editors. Wikipedia administrators are also granted oversight tools on the site to enforce policies and ensure that all content is consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

If an administrator has reason to believe someone is violating Wikipedia policy, they may issue blocks, delete articles, launch internal investigations, and otherwise work with other editors in a variety of ways to amend the issue.

For more information on what keeps Wikipedia accurate, we invite you to read this article, which addresses how Wikipedia keeps information reliable in a digital age. In 2022, the Global Advocacy team at the Wikimedia Foundation also launched a public mapping project to collect all anti-disinformation initiatives and tools developed at the local level across Wikimedia projects, which you can view here.

Of course, Wikipedia is never finished. Not all articles are complete, and many still require more contributions. While it will always be a work in progress, Wikipedia’s open model is part of what makes it so great. It is through this open editorial process that Wikipedia is constantly growing and improving.

For any further questions about Wikipedia content or guidelines, please contact info@wikimedia.org, an email address answered by longtime project editors with vast editorial experience.

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

Kristie Robinson
Senior Manager, Donor Relations
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

This Doesn’t Change Anything

First, this is obviously a canned response. They didn’t write to me so much as have their bots scan my email for key words and issue the appropriate response. It still remains that whatever standards they are using aren’t good enough to prevent the one-sided inaccurate entry over the so-called “Gaza Genocide.” I will need to see real change on this and future controversial articles before I donate again.

Just so it’s stated out loud, I do not expect them to swing their bias in another direction. My expectation is that claims that are volatile and disputed such as “Gaza Genocide” should include that information in article and present the conflict in a way that the dominant perspectives would agree with.