It’s no news to Spectator Australia readers that Wikipedia has the potential to be usurped by biased editors and biased sourcing leading to visible faults within its crowd-sourcing approach to generating an encyclopedia.

In my previous articles, I have highlighted that bias exists on talk pages, on user pages, and in the articles themselves. It can take hundreds of editors over countless hours to review and edit articles to bring them to a neutral standard.

However, a 2024 report issued by the World Jewish Congress (WJC) highlights that when it comes to Israel, the bias runs deep and has a systemic nature – from the use of defamatory terminology, lack of context to major events, and critical omissions from sources on Israel-related articles. The report claims that English Wikipedia has an anti-Israel bias that spreads disinformation and perpetuates negative stereotypes of Jews and Israelis.

The WJC report was presented at the Navigating the New Terrain of Antisemitism – Online Spread Beyond Social Media Platforms post October 7 event held on March 19, 2024, at the Palais des Nations in Geneva as part of an ongoing sideline session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Keynote speakers included former Prime Minister of France Manual Valls, Yfat Barak-Cheney the WJC Director of International Affairs and Human Rights, and Dr Shlomit Aharoni Lir who is a Senior Research Fellow on Gender and Communication at Bar Ilan University and the University of Haifa as well as the founding member of Forum Dvorah and Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Hebrew Writers Association in Israel. Dr Aharoni Lir, who wrote and presented the report, took the time to discuss some of the salient points of the presentation.

Shlomit, thank you for taking the time to do this interview. Tell me, how did you come to find and research anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia?

In my PhD, I examined the effect of social media on women’s voices and part of the research focused on Wikipedia. This was followed by a paper titled Stranger in a Seemingly Open-to-All Website, which explores the gender gap on Wikipedia. Over the years, alongside my academic work, I have been periodically active in Hebrew Wikipedia, contributing articles related to gender, culture, and social justice. Following the surprise terror attack on Israel, I began to hear many of my friends complain about biased articles, orchestrated attempts at deleting articles related to various massacres that occurred on October 7, and unfavourable treatment of Israeli editors on English Wikipedia. This prompted me to explore the subject and communicate with various Wikipedians on this issue. After presenting the initial findings to my colleagues, I was asked by the WJC to issue a report and present it at a session of the UN Human Rights Council. The report is based both on content analysis and on interviews with Israeli Wikipedians.

Can you list some examples of the bias you have found? 

I find articles such as Palestinian genocide accusation, Nakba denial, Israel and apartheid, and Zionism as settler colonialism are notable examples of the bias that I have encountered. These articles portray a skewed perspective and fail to provide balanced coverage which can perpetuate misinformation if not blunt propaganda.

Is it biased only in terminology or are sources also biased? 

The bias is present in various ways and means. For example, the choice of the word ‘attack’ instead of ‘massacre’, or ‘accusations’ rather than ‘allegations’, or the use of language that promotes the demonisation or delegitimisation of Israel, both in the names of articles and their content. I found that the framing of many articles is one-dimensional, lacking mention of repeated acts of terrorism or the threats faced by Israel. Many articles showcase details about the restrictions facing Palestinians without discussing the complex security challenges facing Israel. The framing and terminology present a one-sided view leading to a uni-dimensional perspective. This can also be seen in one-sided sources and the lack of representation of Israeli voices, researchers and facts that show a balanced point of view. The bias is also notable in the biased references which strengthen aspects of demonisation in links suggested for further reading, such as ‘genocide’ and ‘victimisation’, which reinforce the one-sided accusative perception of Israel.

What has been the most biased Wikipedia entry you have seen?

It’s challenging to pinpoint a single Wikipedia entry as the most biased, given the numerous articles that exhibit biased perspectives. However, one example that can stand out is the article titled Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. This entry is disturbing due to its perpetuation of antisemitism through its overall contextual framing and biased portrayal of Israel. One may question the rationale behind such an article and ask why Israel, a democratic country, is singled out, whereas there are no dictatorships with parallel articles. Such selective focus raises valid concerns about the fairness and objectivity of the content presented.

Does this anti-Israel bias also present itself in articles on Judaism and Zionism, and against Jewish or Israeli editors?

It is plausible to presume that the bias and the distortion are spread in a variety of articles related to Jewish history. For example, there is important research published last year showing an intentional and systematic distortion of Holocaust history on English Wikipedia. In order to estimate the extent of the bias, there is an urgent need for more research and tools. In the WJC report, I offer a set of recommendations that suggest yearly research on this issue and the use of AI tools to detect biased articles, flagging them for further monitoring. It is also important to note that based on personal interviews and group discussions, Israeli editors in English Wikipedia have repeatedly expressed being singled out and subjected to excessive criticism. Additionally, some editors have described experiencing hostile and disrespectful treatment from administrators.

Do you believe that the anti-Israel bias is only from a few editors? Or is it a group of editors who are anti-Israel working together?

Based on the interviews, it seems that some editors work together in a manner that perpetuates bias. I was given a list with about 15 names of editors who are very engaged in these sensitive topics while promoting one-sided views. I have not checked the list myself, but it is understandable that in order to fully understand how it is done, there is a need for monitoring tools both for estimating biases and preventing them through various means.

As an online encyclopedia that feeds so many search engine results and AI models like ChatGPT, how do you feel Wikipedia is influencing political debates? Especially pertaining to recent events on October 7?

I believe we are living in an age where we are witnessing the stupidity of intelligent and educated people and English Wikipedia unfortunately plays a role in perpetuating shallow, stereotypical points of view. Many of the articles related to the conflict do not allow the abundance of people who visit them to develop nuanced understandings, as they are fed with one-sided views regarding recent events. As we know stereotypical views leads to prejudice and hatred which can result in actions such as discrimination.

This is very dangerous indeed but can be changed through a few acceptable regulations such as clearer neutrality definitions and refining the neutrality policy with specific examples of bias, especially on sensitive topics. An exterior group to monitor articles for bias, particularly on sensitive matters, is also important. It is crucial to enable automated monitoring tools: developing AI tools to detect biased language and unbalanced content, and flagging it for review. Additionally, conducting regular audits of politically sensitive articles to identify systemic bias and areas for improvement is essential.

Did you believe that Wikipedia which began as this utopian ideal would end up in this form?

The concepts on which Wikipedia is founded – freedom of accessibility, freedom of participation in knowledge production, and freedom to share knowledge – is very inspiring. Equally important is the project’s key principle that neutrality must be maintained at all times. Unfortunately, these concepts are not fully maintained in English Wikipedia in many articles related to Israel.

I believe the project needs to heed the calls for changes and alterations mentioned in the report to achieve its vision and avoid bias that promotes distorted views of reality. One hazard identified from the start is the gender gap, which indicates that the website is perceived as unwelcoming for women to fully participate in the production of knowledge. It appears the foundation needs to actively engage with researchers in the field to make the necessary changes and ensure that the principles of neutrality and free participation are maintained and preserved.

What do you think can help improve Wikipedia to be more neutral?

It is understandable that different people hold different perspectives and might be biased regarding certain topics. For the principle of the ‘wisdom of crowds’ to be realised, a diversity of voices is required. Wikipedia is based on this principle as long as it allows room for multiple perspectives. We can overcome personal biases through diversity and accountability. To ensure this, it is imperative that operators, bureaucrats, and stewards, who are wielding tremendous powers to ban users, rename articles and delete them, work under their full names, and not remain anonymous. This approach will ensure a more respectful treatment of Wikipedians from various backgrounds and enable diversity among the admins themselves.

To read the full report click here.