Zionist editing courses, newspaper denies editing candidate, net neutrality

The Guardian reports that two Israeli groups, the Yesha Council of the settlers movement and another right-wing group, Israel Sheli ("My Israel"), have set up courses in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia. It quoted one of the participants:

According to Israel National News, the goal of the course is to educate and enable an army of editors on Wikipedia and to provide them with professional skills at writing and editing in a manner which defends and promotes Israel's image. Ma'an News Agency reports that the 'Best Zionist Editor' would be awarded with a free hot-air balloon ride. According to AhlulBayt, the Iranian news agency, "Around 50 right-wingers, including media professionals who live in Israeli settlements, are participating in the course, which aims to teach not only how to manipulate the open structure and style of wikipedia to push their far-right political agenda, but also how to do so undetected, in order to get into the administration of the site."

Haaretz reports that the first workshop (held on August 17 in Jerusalem) had around 50 participants, "nearly all of them religious and many from settlements". The newspaper remarked that "For years now, Wikipedia has been a fierce battleground between the Israeli right and left". The scope of the workshop, according to the organizers, included both the Hebrew and the English Wikipedia. On the Foundation-l mailing list, Asaf Bartov from Wikimedia Israel said that "some Hebrew Wikipedians have ... approached that group in order to explain the principles of Wikipedia to them ... as usual, the WP community is vigilant, and has means to counter such initiatives. We hope to win at least a few motivated editors, despite the unpleasant political overtones."

In 2008, the Wikipedia-related activities of the US-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) had attracted attention (see Signpost' coverage: Pro-Israeli group's lobbying gets press, arbitration case).

According to a report by Toronto Sun, an anonymous user has traced an edit to Wikipedia's article about Rob Ford, a Toronto mayoral candidate, to Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. The report states that this unnamed user "was reading through some of the Wikipedia entries on the candidates" when he noticed that a link to a satire site was listed as “Rob Ford’s Personal Blog”. The user then removed it on August 4, but it was reinstated on the following day before it was removed again. The initial "edit in question" was made on July 16. Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd has denied the allegation and has stated they are "trying to track [the edit] down", but this "might be impossible" since the IP is shared by its other publications, including the Sing Tao and Metro newspapers.

During the recent debates about network neutrality, which were triggered earlier this month by an agreement reached between Google and Verizon, several commenters used Wikipedia as an example of a site that would be or could have been affected by a non-neutral Internet. A Discover blog post introduced the topic of the controversy as follows: "An open internet means all bits are treated the same: internet service providers process every internet content provider’s information at the same speed–YouTube or Hulu, Wikipedia or Britannica". In a comment for The New York Times' "Room for Debate", Tim Wu named Wikipedia as an example of "many of the best Internet sites [that] are non-commercial or don't really make commercial sense [and] will get slower and harder to use, while commercial sites like starbucks.com or walmart.com will load faster". His concern over Wikipedia's future was also highlighted on the blog of Reason, where it was noted that Wu "originally coined the term Net neutrality". However, Reason did not "see much evidence that Wikipedia or other non-commercial sites would become harder to use". Gigi Sohn from Public Knowledge indicated that net neutrality might have been a necessary condition for Wikipedia's success in the past: "the public wants the FCC to be able to protect an open Internet that will ensure that the next Google, the next Facebook, the next Twitter and the next Wikipedia can succeed."

← Previous "In the news"

Next "In the news" →

In this issue

23 August 2010 (all comments)

News and notes

In the news

WikiProject report

Features and admins

Arbitration report

Technology report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• Regarding Net Neutrality, I have one message for the FCC: Please leave our First Amendment Rights alone! Chris (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly backwards. See Network neutrality. The message to the FCC should be: Please adopt the full 2005 proposal to require net neutrality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Net Neutrality is the Internet version of the Fairness Doctrine. This is part of the left's effort under Marx's The Communist Manifesto of 1848 which has one of its tenants in controlling all communications. Net Neutrality will do this. Do not forget that Google is very close to the Obama administration and FCC chair Genachowski. Chris (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've confused me. Are you arguing that this Google/Verizon agreement is communist? Given that an absence of net neutrality benefits those with the most money, I'm not sure how you can take such a position, but perhaps I have misunderstood you. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that he's unaware of Google's recent 180. Yoshi348 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I do know is that Google's founder Sergey Bren, who is Russian born, was recently invited to the most recent Bilderberg Conference. This cabal has been doing everything in their power to destroy the US and the very freedoms that we cherish. I don't wish to have this Internet used taken away by an overzealous government whether it be here or abroad. Chris (talk) 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet isn't broken. The Internet doesn't need fixing. The new FCC rules on net nuetrality have been in place for only two years. The Internet worked just fine without them before. The new FCC rules, while on the books, have actually been enforced for zero years. The Internet is working just fine without them being enforced. If they ever do get enforced (remember, the US just got a new president and a new FCC head...), we will have given more power over the Internet to the FCC. Here is an example from the past of what happens when you give more power to the FCC:[1] Also see:[2][3][4][5] --Guy Macon (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Per: "the 'Best Zionist Editor' would be awarded with a free hot-air balloon ride." ............................... Never mind, too easy! But seriously folks, this is going to be a very big, very noisy, highly publicized mess over the next few months. This effort in organized manipulation of content has all the subtlety of a freight train at a street crossing... ArbCom is going to be busy... Carrite (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah... it does promise to be a good intentioned (?) train wreck. A bit of further colour behind it all, from a New York Times bit about "Wikipedia for Zionists": “if someone searches [for] ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.” In my opinion the speaker doesn't quite understand the inherent contradiction between "balanced" and "Zionist in nature" (or "Palestinian in nature" for that matter) especially with regards to NPOV. Tabercil (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a follow up NY Times article. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the mindset of the conspiracist: everyone else is against him, so his efforts to spread propaganda is in reality just an attempt to restore balance (see e.g. the Fox News slogan). Lampman (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a similar Arab initiative. What's next, a government-backed Wikipedia initiative to insure fair coverage of Rapture? These things make me sad. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]