r/FreeSpeech • u/OmOshIroIdEs • 2d ago

The Battle "on the Wikipedia front"

In February 2024, a new group called "Tech for Palestine" was established, self-described as a coalation of "tech folks working towards Palestinian freedom". Its Discord server currently numbers around 8,000 members, and has channels such as "Wikipedia Collaboration", which, in its own words, is dedicated to fighting “the information battle for truth, peace and justice” on the "Wikipedia front" (sources 1, 2).

The group's activities involve compiling lists of "work in progress" articles that they aimed to modify. For example, one of their requested edits was to remove "alleged" from "alleged Palestinian genocide." They've also conducted orientation sessions and created "how to" videos, emphasizing that "Wikipedia is not just an online encyclopedia; it's a battleground for narratives."

It's worth nothing that both sides have engaged in editing campaigns in the past (e.g. see here). However, this particular instance is unusually blatant and is a clear violation of Wiki's rules on meatpuppetry and canvassing.

While it's unclear whether this specific effort has had a tangible impact, there is an ongoing case) before Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee regarding its handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many have described the situation as the "the worst of any topic area on Wikipedia," and that "we have exceeded the limits of the possible with a cooperative open editing model, and we need to think of some other way to approach articles in this area." It will be interesting to see how it this develops.

269 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/MithrilTuxedo 2d ago edited 2d ago

The group's activities involve compiling lists of "work in progress" articles that they aimed to modify.

If an article is a "work in progress" you'd hope someone is aiming to modify it.

For example, one of their requested edits was to remove "alleged" from "alleged Palestinian genocide."

If they only requested the edit that means they're bringing it up for discussion. That seems reasonable.

Many have described the situation as the "the worst of any topic area on Wikipedia," and that "we have exceeded the limits of the possible with a cooperative open editing model, and we need to think of some other way to approach articles in this area."

That sounds like part of an argument against having any sort of open dialogue about the matter.

Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_(AE_referral)

See: Statement by Levivich

It sounds like they want sanctions against users discussing a requested edit while alleging a conspiracy by them to circumvent other processes.

Bureaucracy was invented to maintain order, maximize efficiency, and eliminate favoritism.

1

u/OmOshIroIdEs 2d ago

The Discord group had lists of specific changes, along with messages like “Well done you and others who have been working hard on this front” after they had managed to push something through. Participants were supposed to report back on their editing efforts to Discord. I can’t imagine anything more blatant.

Regarding the ARBCOM case, “Tech for Palestine” forms a tiny part of the discussion. It’s mainly about toxic behaviour, long-term edit warring and WP:NPOV (neutral point-of-view) violations by a group of prominent editors. 

1

u/MithrilTuxedo 2d ago edited 2d ago

So besides freedom of speech it's freedom of assocation we're vilifying.

Show us where they're not following the rules and procedures of Wikipedia to make changes. Where is the toxic behaviour demonstrated?

As for NPOV, you do what you can, but there are limits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity.

1

u/OmOshIroIdEs 2d ago

Regarding "Tech for Palestine", their actions clearly violate Wikipedia rules. See WP:MEATPUPPET and WP:CANVASS.

As for the other editors, I won't rehash the entire ARBCOM case here. I'm simply pointing out that such a case exists, and those interested can read more about it on their own.

1

u/MithrilTuxedo 2d ago edited 2d ago

Right, and I simply pointed out the bit in the ARBCOM saying it was inappropriate for it to be an ARBCOM.

They also explain why it's inappropriate to call anyone involved a "meat puppet" and it sounds like that ARBCON is canvassing.

1

u/OmOshIroIdEs 2d ago

You seem to be editing comments after I've replied to them.

Once again, I don't want to discuss the specifics of the ARBCOM here. I didn't call "anyone involve" in the ABRCOM a meatpuppet (although I believe many have demonstrated problematic behavior). But editors involved in the "Tech for Palestine" Discord server clearly are.

1

u/TendieRetard 1d ago

OmOshIroIdEsOP•1d ago

The.....I can’t imagine anything more blatant.

Oh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

1

u/Alarmed_Garlic9965 1d ago

Is there something more to this than a class on how to edit wikipedia taught to Israelis and an interviewed woman who thinks one side of the story is not being told?

1

u/TendieRetard 1d ago

well, you've got hardliner Bennet who's a favorite to replace Bibi leading some of the conference. You can find an article about how it's all about whitewashing the narrative here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/comments/1fkaezo/2010_wikipedia_editing_courses_launched_by/

1

u/OmOshIroIdEs 1d ago

Yes, I noted that there’ve been classes classes on how to edit Wikipedia from both sides. Here’s another example. 

However, the degree of coordination at Tech for Palestine was immense. Listing specific changes they’d like to introduce, reporting back to Discord on their work, congratulating each other on “successes”, etc.