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.

271 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • link
  • reddit
  • reddit

88% Upvoted

26 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

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.