Haaretz reports that Israeli internet researchers told a Wikipedia conference that the "open source" encyclopedia is biased against Israel.
Among the issues Eli HaCohen raised at a Tel Aviv Wikipedia conference:
- Hamas isn't defined as a terrorist organization in the first paragraph describing the organization on the English site.
- “Hacohen also documented his attempts to define Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as a Holocaust-denier. Each time he included his remarks on Wikipedia, users and editors removed the reference – despite Ahmadinejad's frequent and public Holocaust denials.”
- “Wikipedia defines David Irving – a known Holocaust denier – as a historian, although his credentials are recognized by no one but himself.”
- “The Wikipedia entry on January's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza describes it as an ‘intense bombardment’ by Israel on a civilian population.”
- “Lod is not listed as a city in Israel in Wikipedia's Arabic-language version.”
Wikipedia’s weak response:
Also attending the conference, which discussed Wikipedia's role in academia, was Sue Gardner, the executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia. Gardner told Haaretz that she is "quite comfortable" with the mistakes on the Web site. "I know that more or less the same mistakes can be found in the New York Times," she explained.
Since she mentions the NY Times, at least the paper has clearer sense of accountability. You know who wrote the article, you know who the editors are that approved it, and you don't have to worry about daily revisionism. Google searches on almost any topic typically give top ranking to related Wikipedia pages. People trust the site. The way Gardner dismisses Wikipedia's responsibility galls me.
Last year, HonestReporting exposed anti-Israel subversion on Wikipedia, particularly on issues of Jerusalem, the Camp David accords, Israel’s War of Independence, the Hebrews, not to mention Palestinian advocacy masquerading as Wiki projects.
There is a certain value to what's known as the wisdom of the crowd, but on some topics, like Israel, you have to wonder if an entry reflects other dynamics at play. Groupthink, crowd psychology and the bandwagon effect come to mind.
