In a piece titled "Wikipedia's Reluctant Resisters", Feven Merid of the Columbia Journalism Review reported on how New York-based Wikipedians are holding up under the recent onslaught of attacks from several right-wing sources against the encyclopedia and its contributors. The attacking sources mentioned include the Heritage Foundation, the New York Post, and Elon Musk – see previous Signpost coverage here and here. The CJR specifically reached out to some members of the Wikimedia NYC chapter, including executive director Pacita Rudder, as well as Wikipedians Molly Stark, Jim Henderson, and Ryan Ng. Despite expressing concern over the security of Wikipedia and its volunteers, all of them are generally calm while discussing the recent attacks, if not nonchalant, with Rudder notably saying:
When you choose to become an editor, it's because you're passionate about an issue or you're passionate about making sure that knowledge exists and it's free for people to use. You don’t get paid to do this, and you didn’t sign up to be attacked
The New Yorker reports that Elon Musk Also Has a Problem with Wikipedia. It reviews Musk's insults and interactions involving Wikipedia, "Defund Wikipedia...", his reaction to the article about his "stiff armed salute", "Wokipedia", and "Dickypedia."
The Heritage Foundation does acknowledge their plan to investigate Wikipedia contributors to The New Yorker. "Mike Howell, of Heritage, told me that this 'investigation' of Wikipedia, which, he said, 'is where information is laundered,' will be 'shared with the appropriate policymakers to help inform a strategic response.' " The appropriate policymakers are likely to be in Congress.
According to Howell's biography from the Heritage Foundation –
Mike is the Executive Director of the Heritage Oversight Project. Launched in January 2022, the Oversight Project is Heritage’s investigative and oversight arm. The Oversight Project utilizes Heritage’s world-class issue area experts to inform strategic records requests, targeted litigation, and innovative investigations utilizing cutting-edge resources and contacts. The work is primarily intended to drive successful federal, state, and local oversight and accountability of the destructive work of the radical, progressive Left. Successful oversight means shaping successful policy victories.
Mike joined The Heritage Foundation in October 2018 from the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the General Counsel, where he was the Chief Legal Point of Contact for the department’s 3,000-lawyer office for all congressional oversight and investigations ...
... At Heritage, Mike previously served as the liaison to the Trump Administration and later as a Senior Advisor for Government Relations in the 117th Congress.
– S
"Wikipedia co-founder calls on Elon Musk to investigate government influence over online encyclopedia" – on a Fox News video which also shows Larry Sanger's request for Donald Trump to issue an executive order banning government employees from paid editing of Wikipedia. See this issue's Opinion piece for further coverage. – S
"More than two dozen Wikipedia editors allegedly colluded in a years-long scheme to inject anti-Israel language on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Anti-Defamation League claimed in a bombshell report released Tuesday," according to the New York Post.
The story was covered by many others besides the NY Post, including CNN, MSNBC's Morning Joe, the Times of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, Jewish Insider, and the original report from ADL.
A Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson told the NY Post, "The values of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation reflect our commitment to integrity and accuracy, and we categorically condemn antisemitism and all forms of hate ... Though our preliminary review of this report finds troubling and flawed conclusions that are not supported by the Anti-Defamation League's data, we are currently undertaking a more thorough and detailed analysis.” The spokesperson added that it was "unfortunate" that the ADL did not contact them before the report was released. – B, S
The News Minute reports on an Indian Supreme Court hearing on SC slams Delhi HC order directing Wikipedia to remove ANI defamation case page. The case of immediate concern was about the Wikipedia article Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, not about the alleged defamation itself on the Asian News International page. United News of India added that "the Supreme Court appeared unconvinced by [the High Court]'s reasoning [for the takedown order] and questioned why the High Court was being 'so touchy' about the issue."
Supreme Court Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan noted that the case would have broad implications for press freedom. "This concerns press freedom. If it is Wikipedia today, it could be someone else tomorrow." Reports from Scroll.in – read here – and Reuters – via local press outlets – confirm their expression of concern, albeit in a difficult to parse form in the Hindustan Times. Reuters owns 26 percent of ANI but is not involved in ANI's operations. The next hearing on the case is scheduled for April 4. – S
Discuss this story
So can we restore the article deleted by the WMF yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doc James: Ultimately that's a question for WMF legal, but my best guess is no. The "ruling" as I remember it is that in the next Supreme Court hearing in early April ANI's lawyers have to address the issue of whether the High Court's decision was out of line because it puts a high burden on free speech and freedom of the press. I'll add that IANAL, and have no expertise about Indian law. I do see the ruling as great progress on the case and that it is a victory for the WMF's go-slow, one-step-at-a-time legal approach. Just a quick example, I was thinking that some of The Signpost's earlier coverage of this matter might set off another bad reaction from the court (but IMO we were right to take that small chance). I had no such doubts when writing this article. Smallbones(smalltalk) 09:58, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit disapointed that in the The New Yorker talks to Heritage Foundation, they never mentions who they plan to dox. Surprise, surprise: it is editors who are not "pro-Israeli" enough. Strange that this fact "disappears" from the story. Huldra (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]