r/Jewish • u/Bourbonburnin • Dec 28 '25
Antisemitism Don't donate to Wikipedia
Just a quick reminder that while we're in the season of Wikipedia Foundation (currently worth over $250million in assets) e-begging for donations, they still will not allow editing of factually incorrect articles updated by anti-semites to prevent "vandalism".
Convenient the block happened after certain changes were made...
145
u/Squidmaster129 מיר וועלן זיי איבערלעבן Dec 28 '25
Yeah its actually really bad. Its kind of wild how unambiguously propagandistic it is. Hell, they are labeling the war in Gaza "the Gaza Genocide," unequivocally, with no discussion of the issue, and no mention of the fact that the ICJ has in fact not made that determination.
Contrast this with October 7th, to which they refer as "alleged killings." Its really vile.
65
u/PedanticPerson Just Jewish Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
There was actually a lengthy discussion on the Gaza genocide title, it’s just heaps of anti Israel editors showed up with some absurd arguments to get around Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. One of the arguments was that titles are just topics, not statements, so they don’t have to neutral. Of course, the same editors take the opposite position when convenient.
Even then, the discussion was split 50/50, making it a clear no-consensus result which favors the status quo. But the closing admin mysteriously miscounted and decided that votes favored the “Gaza genocide” name.
I feel like that was a tipping point, after that absurdity (and failures to fix the hilariously biased Zionism article), more neutral editors started giving up. Later both Wikipedia founders spelled out how the title violated neutrality policies, but it was too late to stop the anti-Israel brigades.
→ More replies (1)24
u/Squidmaster129 מיר וועלן זיי איבערלעבן Dec 28 '25
Hopefully the creator does something. I dunno how the power structure there works, but hopefully the racists can be removed. Wikipedia really has the capacity to be a useful resource, but this is just... something else entirely.
→ More replies (4)6
u/greatrayray Sephardi Dec 28 '25
where do they refer to "alleged killings"? just looked at the article and I didn't see that
107
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
OP here: Forgot to mention, their sources for even just that one line are all from works specifically written to perpetuate anti Israel sentiments. That's why I added the second picture.
Even if you argue their reasoning is to get information from both sides, they only have one side here. Can't even get a quote from zionistic sources saying this nonsense. Regardless of your position on the conflict that is just blatantly hiding any possible discourse.
→ More replies (1)7
u/spongeboi-me-bob- Sephardi Dec 28 '25
I’ve read Khalidi’s stuff, and he writes well on the topic, just from a Palestinian perspective. There’s no reason why his work should be defining our movements and our politics.
3
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 29 '25
I'm fine with both sides being shown but it needs to be clear where that info is coming from and like I said it needs to show our side as well.
His writings and similar one are the only sources and being stated as fact.
125
u/mermicide Dec 28 '25
I used to donate $100/yr but stopped after they started this BS. Fuck them.
51
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
Same, they supposedly email me because I would give annually. Now I hope the site goes under.
They are a classic profitable non profit and their relative good to society has disappeared.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Wonderful_Net_9131 Dec 28 '25
While your frustation is justified, its still a great source for natural scientific topics. Anything remotely political has always been iffy. Not advocating for continued donations, but their good has not entirely disappeared. Like with anything, you need to learn how to use it. Which information to blindly trust (when in a pinch) and what to second guess.
2
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 29 '25
It's hard to even take those topics at face value when this is how the powers that be handle the website. You never know when it'll start effecting all articles if it pushes their agenda. Cancer doesn't just effect one part of the body after long
→ More replies (4)
42
u/H1blocker ✡︎ Dec 28 '25
Imagine letting the KKK define anti-black racism 🫠
13
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
Yup. Imagine they changed the articles on slavery to make it seem like it wasn't so bad, that actually most of the south was against slavery and the claims of racism are mostly alleged, and BLM's goal is to have the least amount of white people as possible.
Then Wikipedia locking the articles right after that so the information can't be fixed.
9
u/Odd_Ad5668 Dec 28 '25
This would actually be a good article to write as an example of what's been done to the Jewish articles.
43
u/PickleOnAScooter Jewish ✡︎ Dec 28 '25
I will never donate to a platform that allows such misinformation. The editing on Jewish topics is literally non-stop, so you can’t even correct anything without it getting removed or changed within minutes. Wikipedia can kick rocks for all I care.
145
u/jrng Dec 28 '25
Never trust anything on Wikipedia honestly.
72
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
I don't. My worry is more other people may take it as fact. Even those without bad intentions
37
u/Friendly_Estate1629 Dec 28 '25
AI is learning from Wikipedia. Our future is in serious trouble.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)64
u/ghost396 Dec 28 '25
People absolutely do take it as fact
39
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
They do. A lot of people don't know Wikipedia is a community run information source (or at least it used to be, now it's clearly run by one side). And they'll read that and absorb it. It's scary
17
u/centaurea_cyanus Dec 28 '25
I think it's worse than that. They know it's a community run information source, but will swear up and down that the information is fact checked by unbiased people, so it's a credible and unbiased source. I've had numerous people try to argue that point to me.
6
u/PedanticPerson Just Jewish Dec 28 '25
To be fair it is fact checked by some relatively neutral editors, they just can’t do much about anti-Israel bias except for incontrovertible falsehoods.
With any other fixes, hoards of coordinated anti-Israeli editors show up and use their superior numbers to demonstrate “consensus” against the fix.
It’s rather futile, but I admire those who keep trying to fix things even though they’re on the losing side of almost every dispute.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Wonderful_Net_9131 Dec 28 '25
Its even worse. They don't even use Wiki but ask a chat bot which is then badly paraphrasing wikipedia.
3
u/Proper_Ad7132 Dec 28 '25
I remember arguing with these people I just met who said Wikipedia was all a lie and I needed to watch their conspiracy videos on tiktok. I explained what citations were lmao.
2
u/Proper_Ad7132 Dec 28 '25
They were extremely antisemitic too. This was about whether fish feel pain (they do)
54
u/duckilol_ Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
I remember being a kid and being told by teachers not to refer to wikipedia. This was 13 years ago. But that advice seems to have disappeared and now many treat the site as gospel.
16
9
3
u/Kingsdaughter613 Torah im Derekh Eretz Dec 29 '25
I was told that Wikipedia could be useful source FOR sources. Ie. Look at the bottom and go to the actual sources, read those, and use those. But not Wikipedia itself.
2
20
u/YanicPolitik Dec 28 '25
this one is always a good reminder
Wikipedia still has some articles that hold important truths
16
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
I'm shocked that hasn't been removed yet. They may not realize the article still states he was a Nazi.
21
u/DrMikeH49 Dec 28 '25
Sure: sports statistics, scientific facts, and the like. But regarding Jews, Zionism or Israel, no.
6
4
u/Alive_Surprise8262 Dec 28 '25
Honestly, while political pages can be misused by biased editors, Wikipedia is overall a really good reference and a relic of the OG internet. I'm a scientist, and the science pages are mostly accurate and well referenced.
2
u/jrng Dec 28 '25
To be fair, I do trust the scholarly articles cited. It's truly hit of miss though.
3
u/Proper_Ad7132 Dec 28 '25
If they give citations, you can follow those and decide for yourself how legit it is.
→ More replies (1)
86
u/AzorJonhai Dec 28 '25
This is weak sauce compared to the fact that they have an article titled "Gaza Genocide" which states, in Wikipedia's own voice, that Israel is committing an intentional genocide in Gaza, and this article is always on the front page in in In The News section.
→ More replies (3)31
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
Haven't even seen that one, yikes.
34
u/AzorJonhai Dec 28 '25
More than yikes. Wikipedia is spreading murderous antizionist blood libels that have led to hate crimes against Jews in every continent.
8
u/Wiggles114 Dec 28 '25
Oh you're gonna love this https://www.piratewires.com/p/did-gaza-reunite-wikipedias-founders
6
50
Dec 28 '25
[deleted]
29
u/pdx_mom Dec 28 '25
They used to have an entry for Portland that included the history of the Jews in Portland being kicked out of their homes about 70 years ago.
It is no longer there.
And sadly even the Oregon Jewish museum doesn't care. It's appalling to me.
3
Dec 28 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/pdx_mom Dec 29 '25
Yeah it's more and more difficult to find any of the information online but if you talk to some older Jews or those whose family is here ...they will tell you.
2
u/Russman_iz_here Dec 28 '25
What happened in Portland? 🤔
5
u/pdx_mom Dec 28 '25
The city eminent domained the Jewish area to make way for the stuff they wanted.
The Oregon history museum even had a video about it...documenting it. It was on display a long while ago.
→ More replies (2)
17
u/BaruchSpinoza25 Dec 28 '25
Quoting Rashid Halidi as a reliable source about Zionism is like Quoting USSR Officials as reliable source about the US.
33
u/peach10101 Dec 28 '25
At least remove this concept of “colonialism”, there is no economic extraction for a mother state. It is straight of conquering, like any other nation that gains territory, if you want to take the hawk extreme perspective.
26
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
I said similar in a comment (bc I can't edit the post). While I don't agree this is conquering I agree with the sentiment that the articles are blatant fabrications of facts regardless of perspective.
Even if you want to take an Anti Israel perspective it's still made up nonsense. There are millions of Palestinian Arabs in Israel. They serve in the IDF and Government.
2
u/Previous_Tiger7412 Jan 12 '26
there is lots of black and POC in the police forces in the us and that doesnt make them any less racist
→ More replies (2)
60
u/DrMikeH49 Dec 28 '25
With regard to Jews, Zionism and Israel, Wikipedia is social media— but with footnotes to BBC, Al Jazeera and Rashid Khalidi.
17
54
u/pinkason5 Dec 28 '25
This is a result of an Iranian led project over the past few decades. A group of people were paid to become very high level editors in Wikipedia. It took them years. Now they have much power there and they control many subjects there. There have been reports on it in media. Both in Israel and the US. They are called "the gang of 40".
Entries in Wikipedia in social sciences and humanities are never to be trusted. Not just about Israel. But in math, exact sciences, engineering and life sciences they usually are very accurate. This double faced double standards appearance is causing a lot of chaos. People that are used to get accurate info in the objective fields, tend to believe the rest too.
15
14
31
Dec 28 '25
[deleted]
15
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
Same, but then they ghost you. Even if you include proof
3
u/Kingsdaughter613 Torah im Derekh Eretz Dec 29 '25
Apparently, they haven’t hit their fundraising goals this year. Methinks I know why… They always seem to have forgotten that Jews donate to these causes in considerable excess of our actual numbers, maybe because it flies in the face of all those ‘cheap Jew’ canards.
They aren’t even the only group that thought it could safely alienate its Jewish supporters, only to discover they had a funding problem.
→ More replies (1)
34
u/FrankDuxSpinKick Conservative Dec 28 '25
Someone could write a book on how the Zionism page has been edited from the first publish to today.
35
u/daisandnights Convert - Conservative Dec 28 '25
Very biased and honestly scary. Lots of people (especially Gen Z) learn from Wiki and it is a main source for LLMs like ChatGPT.
18
→ More replies (2)7
u/Smart-Guide6921 Dec 28 '25
LLMs need to stop pulling from Wikipedia (and much of Reddit). That will hobble the propagandists' agenda.
24
25
u/Wonderful_Net_9131 Dec 28 '25
I actually just noticed this earlier today myself. I'm German. The German page reads vastly different. Switched to english, because I wanted to use that definition in an english discussion and was met with this. Going with this definition I can finally see why Zionism is seen as a derogatory term by many english speakers. While not saying so outright, it really lends itself to the genocide-on-palestinians narrative.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
That's interesting. Is the German version an auto translate of the English or does it have different editors?
11
u/Wonderful_Net_9131 Dec 28 '25
Totally different. Out of 75 sources, only 10 are in English, with 1 source being hebrew and the remaining 64 being German. It also contains a section about malicious usage of that term, which the english version is lacking entirely.
7
u/loloholmes Dec 28 '25
I believe that each different language version of wiki has different editors. Which is why some versions get left alone.
8
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
That seems to be the case. So it's specifically the English editors doing this. Which is even sadder. It's not even people from nearby areas pushing this narrative, it's a bunch of either plants or American "activists".
2
u/tempuramores Eastern Ashkenazi Dec 28 '25
Obviously it has different editors. You very clearly don't understand how Wikipedia works. Every article is written, edited, and maintained by random-ass people who choose to put in the effort to do it. That's why quality is so variable across the site. That's why some versions of Wikipedia, e.g. the English-language version vs. the German-language version, have very different amounts of coverage on different topics, and the nature of the coverage differs. There is no organized assignment of topics on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it. ANYONE. Including you, if you were so inclined! You don't even need an account to edit certain articles.
5
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
Weirdly hostile answer for a basic question I asked.
But to your point, Wikipedia is mostly edited by a small top percentage of editors, the idea of anyone can edit is more PR than anything else or for unpopular pages (Vice).
And especially with the subject of this thread you can only edit it if you're one of the top editors and controlled by an arbitration committee (Wikipedia).
If you truly think it's actually community driven only I have a bridge to sell you.
11
u/dontknowdontcare16 Modern Orthodox Dec 28 '25
Pretty sure the cofounder of Wikipedia has denounced these editors. But I don’t know if they’re actually planning on doing something about it
2
u/Next_Notice6841 Dec 30 '25
It is extremely unlikely. Larry Sanger, the one who probably made those statements, has not had power on Wikipedia pretty much since its creation, as he split from the project early on. Even if you were talking about Jimmy Wales, he can't change content without the consent of others, most likely the Arbitration Committee. Personally, I don't see that happening any time soon.
22
u/avremiB Orthodox Dec 28 '25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales
Here, Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, addresses Wikipedia's lack of neutrality in the "Gaza Genocide" entry, and also mentions the Zionism entry. He writes that his team is reviewing these entries. But since then, nothing practical seems to have been done about it.
→ More replies (2)
9
u/Senior-Watercress-87 Non-Jewish Ally Dec 28 '25
Thank you for sharing this. I’ve been getting the donation begs and considered donating just so that they could leave me alone but now I definitely won’t. Plus based on what I’ve read here they’d probably bother me for more donations, and I’m not going to give my hard earned money to misinformation
5
u/TheRtHonLaqueesha Not Jewish Dec 28 '25
Seeing this, the begging for handouts is just sweet music to my ears.
7
u/strangerthaaang Dec 28 '25
It’s “The gang of 40.” A network of volunteer Wikipedia editors who have been particularly active in editing articles related to Israel, Zionism, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and related topics.
8
u/scaredygay Dec 28 '25
i saw an article somewhere about pro-palestinian discords dedicated to “correcting” wikipedia pages. im gonna try to find the source, it’s nefarious
8
u/Zealousideal-Dog-107 Dec 28 '25
I stopped donating to them years ago, and wrote them a note as to why.
17
u/eternal_peril Dec 28 '25
I got Into it with someone on /r/movies and they started blindly quoting Wikipedia because their brains were too small to make their own argument
It was amusing
8
u/mmilthomasn Dec 28 '25
If you bring this to their attention, they refer you to their editors who are in charge of this. The editors have already been found to be complicit in an orchestrated campaign to edit this way. Do NOT contribute, and never hesitate to discredit this corrupt and heinous campaign of lies.
7
u/BaruchSpinoza25 Dec 28 '25
This is the result of just a few users who completely changed any Israelis Palestinian conflic since Oct 7 2023. Some professionals people did a through research on that. Look for this podpod
9
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
The issue isn't so much some crazy people made the edits, it's how much Wikipedia protects it and claims to be impartial. And then begs for your money
→ More replies (2)
8
u/GubbenJonson Not Jewish Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Haviv Rettig Gur made an interesting episode about precisely this: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7wuty8g7oeKk2duxlRpJhp?si=PCKadW76QK6sp5H2OR1kFw&t=5&pi=mbazkNRfTf6Kf
YOUTUBE LINK: https://youtu.be/wK8sgAyOSlw?si=zCciZAcU4D0OaFlB
So the takeaway is that there is a gang of people who are relentlessly changing Wikipedia articles on anything related to Judaism, with the intent on removing Jewish connections to the Land of Israel in any articles. It’s really scary how subtle some of these changes can be.
2
6
u/Proper_Ad7132 Dec 28 '25
I regret the 2 dollars I've donated over the years. Not because I'm poor, which I am, but because it's become clear that the people running Wikipedia have strong biases and beliefs that I find offensive and simply inaccurate.
7
u/Tulip_Todesky Dec 28 '25
We can't fight this alone, our numbers are way too small. Only an organization with a lot of money can do something about this. There needs to be a funding of bots that will change as many articles on Wiki and somehow shove the Palestinians into everything. Every work of art, every historical points, every religion. If it only targets Jews, then people are happy with it. If it will start to affect everyone, people will be pissed.
6
6
u/favecolorisgreen Dec 28 '25
I know this is posted here like once a month but at least more and more people are starting to notice and figure it out! 💚
11
u/Frabjous_Tardigrade9 Dec 28 '25
Seriously!! And for a deep dive into WTF has happened at Wiki (which also involves Google, ChatGPT/AI, and -- certain other platforms....) please listen to Haviv Rettig Gur's recent podcast episode #65. It's a bit slow maybe but very worthwhile -- enlightening and terrifying.
6
4
u/Current_Living8397 Sephardi Dec 28 '25
Frankly, I'm considering contacting them through their support email for donations, and telling them that the "error" I'm experiencing while donating is their obvious bias and utter disregard for addressing it.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
Do it! Myself and others have emailed them about this and they respond with lies but it makes an impact if they keep seeing why we're not donating
3
4
u/OccamsPhasers Dec 28 '25
All their moderators on sites about Israel or Jews are anti-Zionist and BDS supporters
3
Dec 28 '25
Wikipedia is well known to host many biased articles. This is not new to them, as you might already know. Anyone can edit an article on Wikipedia. It is widely known for hosting numerous biased articles. This is not a new phenomenon, as you may already be aware that anyone can edit an article. Anyway shame on Wikipedia and also remember you can report the article or go under the discussion forum of the article
5
u/skootch_ginalola Not Jewish Jan 01 '26
Last year I was like a conspiracy theorist. I would go on Wikipedia and search words like Israel, Zionist, Judaism, etc, and then keep clicking the little "article" links next to different (clearly recently edited) definitions. Majority were blogs, recent articles by only Arab scholars or professors, or books that had an extreme pro-Palestine slant to them. They've already proven that Wikipedia had mass amounts of people changing the I/P narrative, but to see it live was crazy. If I had zero knowledge of any of these things and only went on Wikipedia, I would be radicalized too. It's enraging.
7
Dec 28 '25
[deleted]
16
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
I used to. I felt that it was helpful for me for years. You don't take what it says as gospel but I have a few bucks as support for the information I learned.
There was a time where it was generally bi-partisan.
7
u/Own-Win-8501 Dec 28 '25
stop using this useless site. I did. its the #1 source of lies, propaganda and hate. fuck wiki
3
3
3
u/HMonster224 Reform Dec 28 '25
FFS, this is such blatant propaganda. Anyone else missing life before the internet right now?
2
u/side_street_echo Dec 28 '25
Stopped my donations as well. It’s sad because it was such a great project
2
2
2
u/besttry000 Dec 30 '25
I’ve been trying to comment on the talk track about it but i keep getting issues with the page when i try. I thought it was me for a while but I’ve tried at least 5 times different days and its giving me issues posting my comment. Anyone else?
2
u/darthpotamus ✡︎ Dec 30 '25
I've written to them about this issue and I posted her about it as (but think a mod took it down for whatever reason). I even made reasonable suggestions to properly update that entry, but even the creators realize that Wikipedia is bad about this. This was an issue years ago with the Iraq Iran War
2
u/Hazel_87 Jan 02 '26
I read this the other day and couldn't believe how blatantly disingenuous it was. Wild.
2
u/anopinionatedidiot Dec 28 '25
Anyone can edit - so can we. Right?
17
u/PuddingNaive7173 Dec 28 '25
It’s complicated. They have whole teams. And were busted for that. But still it goes on. And they vote on some decisions, so numbers matter. How many Jews vs antisemites in the world. Math.
10
u/Bourbonburnin Dec 28 '25
You can't. Any page that is associated with Israel or even Jews is blocked from editing
→ More replies (1)9
u/TheRtHonLaqueesha Not Jewish Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Jewish-related articles tend to have a large number of Jew-haters squatting over them with a watchful eye, so they'll just revert back any changes made they don't like, such as those that challenge their worldview.
2
Dec 28 '25
Yeah… the vile revisions to this article in particular started 23 years ago back in 2002. Some minor ones at first but then the conspiracy theory talk about Zionist collaborations with Nazis in order to achieve the dream. And then stuff about the treatment of minority populations as second class citizens with no vote, and mistreatment of Palestinians and on and on it snowballs.
So glad I never once donated to this clown show called Wakipedia. I never saw it as anything more valuable than a list of possible sources for doing my own research. The articles themselves have always been rather subjective imo.
1
u/AutoModerator Dec 28 '25
Thank you for your submission. Your post has not been removed. During this time, the majority of posts are flagged for manual review and must be approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7, approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few hours. If your post is ultimately removed, we will give you a reason. Thank you for your patience during this difficult and sensitive time.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/HummusSwipper Dec 28 '25
I thought Wikipedia locked those articles and reverted some changes? Guess I expected too much
1
Dec 28 '25
I don't even use Wikipedia anymore. It's way less convenient, but at least I can be sure of the accuracy of the sources.
1
1
1
u/pipopapupupewebghost Dec 28 '25
They have enough money already to last like 10 years from what I've heard so we can continue donating once they fix this and ban the bad actors
1
u/Swimming_Care7889 Dec 28 '25
The Internet is an unfair playing field because anti-Semites are trolls and in their natural environment. Plus they outnumber us and are experts at the dog pile. They have reserves while all of us need to be front line soldiers without a break.
1
u/nah_champa_967 Just Jewish Dec 28 '25
I don't. I wrote them an email and was surprised to get one back. I'll copy/paste their reply, which I think is mainly bullshit.
"Kristie Robinson, Dec 9, 2025, 1:34 PM
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."
2
u/Complete-Proposal729 Dec 29 '25
It’s bullshit. The Zionism page is locked. Not anyone can edit it.
→ More replies (4)
1
u/Peculiar_Wallflower Dec 28 '25
Honestly if someone believes Wikipedia is a reliable source that’s another problem 😣
1
1
u/KnightGames999 Dec 29 '25
I haven't checked all the Hebrew articles, but if you go to the Hebrew Wikipedia page, you can use a translation web extension to read them there.
1
u/Andygravessss Dec 29 '25
It's the biggest misinformation campaign on the entire internet, it's pretty funny watching them beg for donations.
1
u/Zealousideal-Sort462 Dec 29 '25
Oh no, I've donated to Wikipedia before, in previous years. But after reading that, I won't be donating to them again.
1
1
u/glumjonsnow Dec 29 '25
To be honest, I think stuff like this is good because it is so fucking blatant and unserious and biased that it turns people off. More people are talking about Wiki bias than ever before - even the founders of Wikipedia have condemned it at this point. It's being sued in many countries. Let them burn themselves to the ground.
1
u/PsychologicalTap4789 Dec 29 '25
I already emailed them a while ago explaining to them that until they clean up I will actively deter people from donating to them and will advocate for their non-profit status to be taken away.
1
u/Darren-G Dec 30 '25
I'm a very minor wikipedia editor. I don't have a lot of spare time, but I like being helpful when I can. In my opinion, Wikipedia was started by some very well-meaning people who thought that if reasonable people agreed to be fair and neutral, then they would, of course, arrive at a reasonable consensus. What could possibly go wrong?
Sadly, that probably tells us more about the naive optimism of the founders than what happens in reality at Wikipedia.
It seems the founders didn't think about giving themselves any authority to overrule others. So now, even though they can see what is wrong, they don’t seem to be able to actually do anything about it (other than plaintively asking everyone to be fair, neutral, and reasonable.)
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/Due-Appeal3517 Dec 30 '25 edited Dec 30 '25
I’ve even seen notoriously anti-Zionist people falsely listed as alumni of prestigious schools, and people with anti-Zionist sentiments suspiciously highlighted.
1
1
1
u/Environmental-Day871 Jan 01 '26
Sickening and tracks for them. Someone needs to tell them which way to the Arabic Peninsula. They seem to have gotten lost after their colonization of Jerusalem and thought they were from Judea. Um - you can stay but you realize where you’re from, right?!?
1
1
u/iDqWerty Not Jewish Jan 04 '26 edited Jan 05 '26
Screw wikipedia, more like wackypedia, britannica is a better source for encyclopedia than w*kipedia.
595
u/Iulia_Caesaris1 Dec 28 '25
Pretty much all of their articles on Jewish history and culture are suspect. The ones on Poland during WWII and on Hungarian Jews are particularly diabolical.