The Signpost

File:Big Duck 2018 05.jpg
Mike Peel
CC-BY SA 4.0
-300
400
In the media

Will you be targeted?

Contribute   —  
Share this
By Bri, Jonatan Svensson Glad, Oltrepier, Smallbones and Andreas Kolbe

Heritage Foundation plans to identify and target Wikipedia editors?

Don't get caught like a deer in the headlights. Are you a target?

An exclusive report by investigative journalist Arno Rosenfeld for The Forward, published January 7, 2025, reveals that the Heritage Foundation has elaborated a plan to "identify and target" Wikipedia editors who the group says are "abusing their position" by publishing content the group believes to be antisemitic, although it's not exactly clear what kind of antisemitism this effort is intended to address. According to the report, which was later also quoted by Gizmodo, the plan includes using facial recognition software and information from database breaches (including usernames and passwords), applying natural language processing to find "style, repeated phrases, and content patterns", creating fake accounts to trick other editors into divulging personal details, and other means to detect coordinated editing.

Although it's not possible to determine whether the Heritage Foundation has already started the scheme, the slide deck shared by The Forward, titled "Wikipedia Editor Targeting", is still worth examining in detail. Under the heading "Technical Fingerprinting (Controlled Domain Redirects)", it states that the group will use "Controlled Links: Use redirects to capture IP addresses, browser fingerprints, and device data through a combination of in-browser fingerprinting scripts and HTML5 canvas techniques." They also will use "Technical Data Collection: Track geolocation, ISP, and network details from clicked links."

Under the heading "Online Human Intelligence (HUMINT)", the group proposes "Persona Engagement: Engage curated sock puppet accounts to reveal patterns and provoke reactions, information disclosure", as well as "Behavioral Manipulation: Push specific topics to expose more identity related details" and "Cross-Community Targeting: Interact across platforms to gather intelligence from other sources."

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that, despite being already known for its highly-influential role in the presidency of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, has most recently returned to the spotlight for masterminding Project 2025, a controversial political blueprint for the incumbent Trump administration. In this case, however, the leaked pitch deck for the Wikipedia initiative was reportedly sent to prospective donors of Project Esther, an alleged plan to fight antisemitism and anti-Zionism, which has already faced criticism for failing to address antisemitism by right-wing figures, and seemingly recycling antisemitic tropes itself.

Caution! Duck crossing

The Heritage Foundation has apparently been involved in a related case of rule-breaking on Wikipedia before. A 2017 sockpuppet investigation specifically centered on the think tank's article, and ended with the ban of five editors, ObjectivityAlways, Orthodox2014, LambdaChi, PAWiki, and MiamiDolphins3, who all had edited the Heritage Foundation article. Four of these editors had all registered over a short period in 2006.

ObjectivityAlways edited the page 168 times, the second most of any editor: their edits on the article include aggressive reversions of other editors, rearranging sections, basic housekeeping tasks, and whitewashing. For instance, they stated that Heritage is not affiliated with a political party, while removing a category that suggested the opposite. Orthodox2014 made 18 different edits to the article in February 2017, being more aggressive in reverting other editors and whitewashing the article than ObjectivityAlways had been.

Over twenty other editors were banned as apparent sockpuppets after editing the same article. Since most of these editors made five or fewer edits, it is difficult to say if they were supporters of Heritage; we estimate that about half could be considered "pro-Heritage". We remind readers that, based solely on Wikipedia's editing records, it's impossible to fully identify an editor or their employer: the editor may simply be trying to embarrass the subject of the article.

The Forward article quoted the reactions of Wikipedia users Tamzin and GorillaWarfare: the former stated the methods proposed by the slide deck were well-known by Wikipedia editors, saying quote, "It's scary they want to do this, but it’s not a 'zero-day'". GorillaWarfare said that "the document is sort of vague about what they would do once they ID a person, but the things that come to mind are not great."

Both the Heritage Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation have declined to comment to both The Forward and Gizmodo. However, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales did respond personally to some of the concerns raised by users in a Village Pump discussion:

Well, I fully agree that developments in terms of arguments and actions aimed at destroying trust in knowledge (and of course our specific interest, trust in Wikipedia) are extremely worrisome, particularly as I agree that for many who are doing it, the motive does appears to be the undermining of civic norms and democracy. I also agree with Tryptofish in a part that you didn't quote: "In a narrow sense, it's technically true that if you 'out' yourself, there's no point in anyone else doing it. But once your identity is known, you become vulnerable to all of the kinds of real-life harassment that doxed people find themselves subjected to. It doesn't matter, in that regard, how they found out your identity." That's a sad balancing act that no Wikipedian should have to face.

As a side note, I don't think that the reliability of the Heritage Foundation as a source is particularly related to these despicable actions. Whether they should be considered a reliable source in some matters is really unrelated to whether they hate us or not.

These developments come as three volunteer Wikipedia editors are still directly involved in the ongoing court case between Asian News International and the WMF over at the Delhi High Court – see previous Signpost coverage here and here. – B, S, O

Israel's spending on influencing public opinion, including English Wikipedia, to increase twentyfold

The article about the Heritage Foundation came on the heels of another Forward article published on December 28, 2024, titled "Israel has spent millions trying to win hearts and minds abroad. It's about to spend 20 times more." This stated that as part of a coalition agreement with new Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, the Israeli Foreign Ministry had massively increased its budget for influencing public opinion abroad.

The reason for this was that measures taken in the past – including a project called "National Vision" set up to influence the English Wikipedia – had not been successful enough, said the Forward article, citing an October 31, 2024 report by the Israeli Shomrim Center for Media and Democracy. According to the Shomrim report, the "National Vision" organization, founded by Likud politician Ariel Kallner, was "designed to highlight the Israeli government's narrative on the English Wikipedia and to distribute advocacy videos in Russian". – AK

Elon Musk, Wokepedia, and all that jazz

All that jazz... or just hot air?

Elon Musk’s ongoing critique of Wikipedia continues to spark a media frenzy, with coverage from Newsweek, Newsmax, The New York Post, and Times of India, among others. Musk has accused the platform of being "woke" and discouraged donations, citing its DEI initiatives. His remarks also reignited his $1 billion joke offer to rename Wikipedia, prompting responses across X (see previous Signpost coverage). Snopes verified these events, while Daily Kos and The Philadelphia Inquirer examined how Musk’s criticisms align with broader right-wing media narratives targeting Wikipedia's perceived political leanings.

Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera also reported on the subject (in Italian, behind a pay-wall), noting that many users on X, as well as Threads and Bluesky, responded to Musk's taunt by inviting others to actually donate to Wikipedia. The Corriere also acknowledged the existence of the article about Ideological bias on Wikipedia, while reminding that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform where "transparency is a fundamental place to start from, but does not resolve every controversy", and that the presence of cognitive bias and prejudice stems from the behavior of users who actively edit pages, rather than the encyclopedia itself. – B, O

In brief



Do you want to contribute to "In the media" by writing a story or even just an "in brief" item? Edit next week's edition in the Newsroom or leave a tip on the suggestions page.


S
In this issue
+ 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.

I took a reasonably serious look at the Heritage Foundation's slide deck a few days ago. While what is shown is vague, the most plausible interpretations would involve illegal activity. I'd be interested to know if the deck is vague because the author didn't know what they were talking about, because that's how they write presentations or because they were being cautious what they committed to a written record (or indeed some other reason, or combination). The deck also omits any description of what "Wikipedia editors abusing their position" means. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 10:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

I'm just speculating, but to me the slideshow read like they were in the early stage of the project. Its essentially a list of all the commonly known ways to identify pseudonymous users on the internet (or cliques of users. Some of the methods (but only some) would be more useful to identify which users are sockpuppets of each other or at least working closely together, but not their actual identity per se) excluding techniques that are excessively expensive/illegal like getting a 0-day on the black market. I think they were pitching what they could potentially do, but don't really have a plan yet, so that's why its all very vague. In essence I think they were writing a pitch for a project that hasn't started yet.
My theory on this is as follows (I'm giving a lot of benefit of the doubt here, but at the same time I think its important to keep in mind that villains never think of themselves as evil; they always think of themselves as justified): Heritage foundation believes that Wikipedia is biased against it (True or not, American right wing has had this as a talking point for a while now, so I think they earnestly believe it). They believe their ideological enemies have infiltrated Wikipedia and the system is being gamed. Perhaps they saw the news about the "Off-wiki misconduct in Palestine–Israel topic area" and they felt that only further confirmed what they already suspected and that it is the tip of the iceberg (Given the timing of all this, I actually do think that whole drama might have been what gave heritage foundation the idea). Given they are a think tank who aims to shape the public narrative, this is a major problem for them. So they decide to do something about it. People have been assuming that their intent is to dox, harass and generally have a chilling effect on wikipedia editors who disagree with them in topic areas they care about, but I don't think that's quite it (Although perhaps that is a bonus to them). I think they earnestly believe (to be clear, I'm not saying this is true, just that the heritage foundation folks believe it) that their ideological opponents have infiltrated Wikipedia, and they want to set that "right". I think they wanted to achieve this by gathering evidence of people off-wiki collaborating/sock puppeting/etc (By essentially investigating everyone against them in certain topic areas until they find dirt). I think they wanted to sell this "investigation" as "investigative journalism". This would give it the legitimacy of journalism. Something coming out of a partisan think tank isn't going to change hearts and minds except for the people who already agree with them. However if they did uncover some large partisan sockpuppet ring or something, they probably believe having it be in a newspaper would put pressure on Wikipedia to change its system (or failing that delegitimize wikipedia as "neutral" which would probably also work for them) in a way that they never could do themselves. So in essence, what I think this presentation is, is a pitch deck to get some major news outlet on board to do the investigation with them and publish it under their banner. Which is why its essentially a laundry list of techniques that while grey-area probably are maybe not straight up illegal. I think this would explain why everything is so vague (Its just a pitch), and also why they were emailing their evil plans to journalists, bond-villian style. Bawolff (talk) 12:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Laws vary over time and from country to country. Techniques that are legal in some jurisdictions may not be legal under European Data Protection Law. So if they are planning to look for similar writing styles of pairs of editors who support each other and report possible sockpuppets to our Sock hunters, then that's fine. But the implied dodgier stuff? Friends, please review your passwords and change any old or weak ones. ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IANAL, but presumably the laws that matter would be where the Heritage foundation is located, which i guess is Washington DC. The stuff they are proposing would be blatantly illegal under GDPR, and I think EU claims GDPR still applies even for groups outside the EU if they are handling data of an EU national, but as a practical matter, it seems hard to imagine that any laws other than US ones would apply, and US laws are pretty weak. While I agree that reviewing passwords is always good advice, I think its important to note that the presentation did not mention anything about attempting to login to targets accounts (Probably because such a thing would be blatantly illegal, even in the USA) Bawolff (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]



       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0