In the realm of social media, Wikipedia isn’t a platform that comes to mind. It isn’t thought to possess hate speech, misinformation, let alone antisemitism. Rather, Wikipedia presents itself as a well-sourced, crowd-generated, free encyclopaedia, relying on consensus building and the neutrality of editors. The aim is ‘to inform, not influence’. Yet, Wikipedia’s collective consensus building to achieve neutrality is an assumption that is naïve at best, revealing what I believe to be unsettling editor bias on the platform. Essentially, while Wikipedia has systems in place designed to correct mistakes, these systems appear to be struggling to cope with political narratives.

As I have demonstrated in the past, during periods of geopolitical conflicts and when contentious topics dominate the news, there is a noticeable uptick in Wikipedia page views. Consequently, editors flock to these pages striving, in my view, to influence the narrative. A closer examination of editor user pages and article talk pages unveils a disconcerting parallel with major social media platforms.

Source: Wikishark.com; Uptick in ISRAEL page views on October 7th

Wikipedia has not been left untouched by the disturbing surge in antisemitic speech and conspiracy theories about the Jewish people seen online. Wikipedia’s access and editing for all (crowd sourcing) shows the platform’s vulnerability to bias and political influence.

In the wake of the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israel, one editor’s portrayal of a Palestinian flag branding ‘Judaism as a religion of life and Zionism as a cult of death’ led to reprimands from administrators. However, the editor denied that the statement qualified as hate speech and went so far as to lobby other like-minded senior editors to defend it. Another case is of an experienced editor quoting antisemitism denialists and going on to draw parallels between the current Israeli government and the Nazis. The same editor argued that an attempt to label said editor as antisemitic is a mere tactic to enforce silence.

Source: Wikipedia User: Trilletrollet

Wikipedia editors hide behind anonymity and a user interface of talk pages that are not so obvious to the public allowing for hate speech and misinformation to go unchecked. Here, editor discussions take place in a pseudo-academic format on what an article should and shouldn’t include. All positions need to be well-sourced, yet sources are also voted on via consensus in order to make the reliable sources list. It seems like an alternate reality when media outlets with questionable neutrality are used as reliable sources. Moreover, the dominance of left-leaning sources means that information is limited and skewed. Academic articles take precedence but with the current state of academia – when calling for genocide is defended by some university presidents – Wikipedia is found wanting.

Source: Wikipedia

Moreover, cherry-picking information from sources is common in order to bolster an editor’s or a group of editors’ narrative. Take this article and talk page on Palestinians. There is a group of pro-Israel editors arguing with a group of pro-Palestinian editors about the misuse of a source on the genetic link between the ancient Canaanites and modern Jews and Arabs. The pro-Palestinian editors omit mentioning the genetic link between Jews and Canaanites in order to bolster the Palestinian genetic link. The pro-Israel editors are dismissed, the senior administrator involved doesn’t care to comment on the misuse of the source, and if a reader were to only read this page, they would be getting half the information. An encyclopaedia should be unbiased but there is no shortage of opinions within it.

The many editors most prolific on political articles use sources to their advantage, omitting and adding the information that suits their narrative. It is an unsettling thought that this free encyclopedia has nearly seven million articles in English with active editors equating to less than one per cent of the total 46 million editors on the site. It means that the most active editors are a very small group with their own interests and biases. It also means that editing Wikipedia becomes a numbers game reminiscent of the quote, ‘Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.’ In other words, if you are outnumbered by a group of like-minded editors, you become the dinner.

Source: Wikipedia User: Salmoonlight

This consensus policy with no checks and balances means the potential for biased narratives permeates the articles. A very recent and crucial example of this taking place was investigated in March of this year, where a group of Polish editors distorted Holocaust articles over a period spanning 15 years. The editors were familiar with Wikipedia’s mechanisms and created the appearance of adhering to the rules. They were also willing to invest a vast amount of time in debating other editors in order to build consensus and worked together to discredit established historians, often propping up fringe voices. The editors created the semblance of a real-world academic debate over what should be considered a non-controversial genocidal event, yet it was rendered a discussion on semantics and interpretation. The 15-year delay by Wikipedia in banning these distortionists prompted suggestions for external experts to address controversial political issues on the site, yet the experts are still nowhere to be found.

Take a discussion on 22 November 2023 about changing the blue Star of David in an article about Jews. Editors can be found disputing its connection to Jewish identity citing that it isn’t representative of all Jews. One editor is quoted as saying, ‘I think it would be accurate to say that Zionism invented the Jewish people, and therefore is as much a part of Jewishness as Judaism.’ The discussion is painted as academic, quoting sources, pitching argument against argument, all whilst the only Jewish nation is fighting a war after the most heinous attacks on Israeli civilians.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realise that these discussions are not happening in a vacuum. Editors that start these types of debates have a narrative they want to push and these very same editors know that millions of people will read it and believe it. Wikipedia fails to effectively manage the dominance of editor group think and the platform’s consensus-building model is consistently manipulated. For this reason, Wikipedia is no more than a social media platform with citations.

Hava Mendelle is a Political Science graduate who left politics to obtain a real career in Nursing.