León Markovitz

Jimmy Wales wades into the Israel-Palestine war on Wikipedia. Hope he's got his gaiters on, because it is swampy in there! Here's what you need to know: 1. Yesterday, Jimmy Wales posted in the Talk pages on the "Gaza Genocide" article on Wikipedia a lengthy statement. Wales says: "I was asked point-blank in a high profile media interview about this article, and I answered with transparency and honesty: this article fails to meet our high standards and needs immediate attention." 2. Wales says the Gaza Genocide article is "particularly egregious. Part of what Wales means is that the article opens by stating there is a genocide in "WikiVoice" – Wikipedia's own factual point of view, and not by referring to the views of various bodies: "The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war." Lower down in the thread Wales writes: "Indeed, outside pressure is irrelevant. NPOV [Neutral Point of View] is what matters. This article fails. There is, in the real world, significant dissent from the core idea in the article, including major governments, etc. We say, in WikiVoice, things that are very much hotly contested in many reliable sources and competent authorities." 3. The top editor on "Gaza Genocide" is Cdjp1, who has added a staggering 150,039 characters to the article, which accounts for 41% of its content. The next most active editor, by comparison, has added just 28,000 characters to the article (7.7%). + Cdjp1 is also one of the top editors on the "Charlie Kirk" article, which I reported recently for its evident skew. 4. This is not Cdjp1's first time at the "genocide" rodeo. The editor is also the #1 contributor to an entirely separate article titled, "Palestine genocide accusation," to which Cdjp1 has contributed 120,000+ characters - also about 40% of the entire article. + This is how adversarial or attacking editors work—by creating not just one article, but a network of articles pushing an ideological point. + For example, in the effort to seed the narrative that Trump is a "fascist," editors created a network of articles and article sections, including: - "Donald Trump" - "Trumpism" - ""Donald Trump and fascism" - "Racial view of Donald Trump" - "Democratic backsliding in the US" - "Fascism in North America" This network of articles is a strong indicator that there is an ideologically- or politically-motivated campaign at work. 5. Back to "Jimbo" - editors pushed back quickly, with one suggesting it's "bad faith" for Wales to question the quality of an article produced by the Wikipedia community. + Another editor accuses Wales of using AI to generate part of his message, saying 6. The broader context for this debate is that a group of around 40 ideological editors has hijacked the Palestine Israel Articles (PIA) topic area, making around 1M edits to 10,000 articles. + I first reported on the "Gang of 40" in an October 2024 article for @PirateWires (link in thread) + Since then, 6 Gang of 40 leaders were topic-banned by ArbCom. But—as I reported for @tabletmag (link in thread)—before their bans went into effect, a number of them worked to lock the lead of the "Zionism" article with a "moratorium" that has never been used in this fashion. + Weeks after placing their moratorium, these editors were banned. But their edits, particularly to the "Zionism" article lead, are now encased in conceptual amber. 7. After my 2024 investigation, @GOPoversight launched an investigation into @Wikimedia for foreign influence on the platform. That investigation is ongoing. For more @Wikipedia investigations, follow us at @npovmedia.