CAMERA and Wikipedia

[CDNBear]

I've had a problem with Wikipedia for years. So to say I'm biased, would be an understatement. This bias though, is formulated and supported by the very real facts that Wikipedia is plagued with errors, suspicious data and self supporting documentation.

I won't argue the matter, it's been proven time and time again. Even it's co-founder has an issue with the site.

In a recent thread, the CAMERA campaign to address these glaring issues, was brought up to malign the NGO. In a weak attempt to dismiss the very real fact that CAMERA is, has been and always will be, a source of fact. A fact that no one to date has been able to prove otherwise.

The following is CAMERA's position on their attempt to bring balance to some of the anti Israeli articles in Wikipedia.

The Wild West of Wikipedia
“Part anarchy, part mob rule” might seem like a description of the American frontier in the days of the Wild West, but it’s actually a reference to today’s internet frontier. It’s how Larry Sanger describes Wikipedia, the hugely popular online encyclopedia that, to the dismay of teachers everywhere, is used as an educational tool by millions worldwide.

Sanger isn’t just a casual observer. He was a co-founder of Wikipedia, making him perhaps the best authority on the Web site and its shortcomings. He explains that in the world of Wikipedia, “the people with the most influence in the community are the ones who have the most time on their hands - not necessarily the most knowledgeable - and who manipulate Wikipedia’s eminently gameable system.” He eventually left the project, blaming its “poisonous social or political atmosphere.”

The theory underpinning Wikipedia, as most know, is that anyone can be an “editor,” and add to articles whatever information (or misinformation) they want. Less well-known is that contributors can make changes anonymously, thus shielding them from any real consequences. This acceptance - or even embrace - of anonymity makes Wikipedia wilder than the west ever was, and ensures that it will probably never be as reliable as mainstream news sources.

Anonymity and accountability are simply not compatible. Disgraced New York Times reporter Jayson Blair, who brazenly violated the ethical principles of journalism by fabricating stories, has been held accountable. He will never work for a newspaper again. Other journalists know this, and so even those less committed to the canons of journalism tend to follow the rules to avoid such a fate. Anonymous editors of Wikipedia articles have no such concerns. Their jobs and reputations are secure, regardless of how much inaccurate information they add to the encyclopedia, or how much they skew an article.

Even less understood about Wikipedia are the contentious behind-the-scenes arguments that help determine what information ends up in a Wikipedia entry, and what is excluded. Editors with the most time and allies often dominate these discussions and create the impression of “consensus,” which Wikipedia holds sacred as a way to reach decisions about an article.

Wikipedia entries about the Middle East are among those most affected by anarchy, mob rule, and back-room bickering. Indeed, it’s in this setting that I, and my colleagues at the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting (CAMERA), set off a firestorm of discussion, accusation and recrimination centered around how the encyclopedia works. Convinced that directing more well-intentioned individuals to participate in the Wikipedia experiment could help offset the site’s problems, we sent a notice to our members calling for volunteers to learn about and edit Wikipedia’s often-skewed entries about the Middle East.

Dozens of volunteers responded, as did, it turns out, a friend of the anti-Israel activist Web site Electronic Intifada, who subsequently charged a conspiracy was afoot to “rewrite Palestinian history.”

This faux expose set some Wikipedia “editors,” a number of whom have a clear history of pro-Palestinian editing, on a rampage of denunciation. In a witch-hunt like atmosphere, they attacked anyone they thought was involved in the group - now referred to as a “cabal” - and Wikipedia “administrators” banned a number of editors. (Wikipedia has very little central authority, meaning administrators - people elected to a position of power on Wikipedia - are basically editors with friends. Also anonymous, they often edit as problematically as other editors, or worse.) Tellingly, it was later revealed that one of the Wikipedia editors who led the attack is actually an employee of Electronic Intifada.

Nonetheless, many editors who hoped to ensure accuracy and balance on Wikipedia are now banned. Partisan editors, meanwhile, continue to freely manipulate Wikipedia articles to their liking. To cite just one example: An article about the Second Intifada - the recent years of Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks against Israeli men, women and children - tells readers that “most people of the world” regard the violence as a “war of national liberation against foreign occupation,” while the view of the Intifada as a terrorist war is held only by “many Israelis.” Never mind that Wikipedia’s shoddily-enforced “rules” bar such unverifiable and dubious speculation. And never mind that it’s not just many Israelis, but also the U.S., E.U., Canada and others, who label Hamas and other Intifada protagonists as terrorists.

Other articles similarly misinform - there is “some very, very bad stuff,” says a former editor in chief of Encyclopedia Britannica - because Wikipedia is, unfortunately, an anarchic battleground on which the only real casualties are unsuspecting readers looking for a credible encyclopedia.

CAMERA: CAMERA Column: The Wild West of Wikipedia

Without direct evidence to the contrary, there is no unethical, suspicious or otherwise untoward act here. Any contrary opinion, is based solely on conjecture, bias and ideological divides.

Which of course is the exact opposite of what CAMERA does. Which is report the truth.

 

[CDNBear]

The following letter was published in the September 2008 issue of Harper's Magazine:
After the pro-Palestinian advocacy group Electronic Intifada selectively released posts from the CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) online discussion forum about Wikipedia, disingenuously spinning it as a nefarious plot, the editors at Harper's Magazine further whittled the collection of posts to a few of the most overzealous by a single participant in the conversation, "Isra guy," who is neither an employee nor a member of the group. Harper's published these unrepresentative posts ["Candid CAMERA," Readings, July] under the rubric "Plot," but the idea that Isra guy's opinionated comments indicate that our Wikipedia effort, which was geared toward encouraging people to learn about and edit the online encyclopedia for accuracy, was a "plot" could not be further from the truth.
CAMERA repeatedly urged all who read the forum to follow Wikipedia's guidelines, and continues to urge all who visit our website to work toward improving the flawed Wikipedia experiment. Others who feel that Wikipedia has serious shortcomings include the encyclopedia's cofounder Larry Sanger, who described the encyclopedia as "part anarchy, part mob rule," and former Encyclopedia Britannica editor in chief Robert McHenry, who has said that Wikipedia is the source of "some very, very bad stuff."
Gilead Ini
Senior Research Analyst
CAMERA
Boston

CAMERA: CAMERA Letter in Harper's Magazine About Wikipedia Issues

 

[JLM]

I use Wikipedia a lot. I think it can be useful, but one has to keep in mind what he's using it for. For example if I hear of a place or a person on the news that I want more information about, it's good. I used it for info about the Falkland Islands and I think I got a pretty good picture of the F.I. Where I would be careful about using it would be for a final interpretation of some event or an evaluation of some political figure. LIke everything else you believe 10% of what you see!!!!!!!!!

 

[CDNBear]

I use Wikipedia a lot. I think it can be useful, but one has to keep in mind what he's using it for. For example if I hear of a place or a person on the news that I want more information about, it's good. I used it for info about the Falkland Islands and I think I got a pretty good picture of the F.I. Where I would be careful about using it would be for a final interpretation of some event or an evaluation of some political figure. LIke everything else you believe 10% of what you see!!!!!!!!!

That's a wise position JLM.

I will use Wiki for quick historical rebuttal. Only if I can support what Wiki states, with other data, not readily available. It is not an accredited source of data and documentation. Most, if not all univerityies and colleges have disallowed Wiki as a source for the very real facts that CAMERA highlights in its action.

I would avoid Wiki for bio's on people too.

 

[Johnnny]

i use wikipeida less and less, i use other links that show up from my google search. And to be honest most of those links were copy and pasted onto wikipeida

 

[earth_as_one]

Camera is just pissed at wiki for not letting them rewrite history... in a way that portrays Israeli favorably of course.

War of the virtual Wiki-worlds

By Alex Beam Globe Columnist / May 3, 2008
What if they decided to pursue the Arab-Israeli conflict by other means? Inevitably, it would take place on the Internet. And inevitably Wikipedia would be involved.
more stories like this




In what was probably not a very smart idea, Gilead Ini, a senior research analyst for CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, put out an e-mail call for 10 volunteers "to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors." (Basically, anyone with a Web browser can edit articles on Wikipedia, which wreaks havoc with the site's treatment of controversial topics such as evolution, Bill Clinton, or the Middle East.) More than 50 sympathizers answered the call, and Ini put his campaign into motion.
In follow-up e-mails to his recruits, Ini emphasized the secrecy of the campaign: "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions," he wrote. "Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a 'Zionist' cabal . . . is trying to hijack Wikipedia."
That is certainly what the campaign looked like to the Electronic Intifada, a parallel-universe, pro-Palestinian news organization operating out of Chicago. Someone leaked four weeks' worth of communications from within Ini's organization, and the quotes weren't pretty. Describing the Wiki-campaign, a member of Ini's corps writes: "We will go to war after we have built an army, equiped [sic] it, trained." There is also some back-and-forth about the need to become Wikipedia administrators, to better influence the encyclopedia's articles.
EI accused CAMERA of "orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia, to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged."
That got Wikipedia's attention. A panel of three administrators sanctioned or indefinitely blocked and banned five members of Ini's group. "Wikipedia is based on open, transparent editing in an atmosphere of mutual respect between editors," these administrators opined. "This goal is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing on Wikipedia by ideologically like-minded individuals." A formal arbitration process is ongoing.
Ini is unapologetic about his role in the deception campaign, which, he insists, was never a deception campaign at all. "We would be idiots if we thought we intended to hide our intentions," he said in an interview. In some areas of controversy, Ini said, "Wikipedia is a madhouse. We were making a good-faith effort to ensure accuracy" in Middle East postings.
Why bother with Wikipedia, I asked? "It may be the most influential source of information in the world today," Ini said. "And we and many others think it is broken." I asked Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah if his outfit played similar games. "We would never encourage people to do that," he said. "There has been no parallel effort on our side whatsoever."


War of the virtual Wiki-worlds - The Boston Globe

 

[CDNBear]

Camera is just pissed at wiki for not letting them rewrite history... in a way that portrays Israeli favorably of course.

And if you could actually do any of your own investigating, you would know that this quote...

"We will go to war after we have built an army, equiped [sic] it, trained."

Wass from a poster on the forum, not a member of the team. This furomite, was warned time and time again about the tone and content of his posts.

And of course, because Ini doesn't believe that supporting terrorists as you do, when he says this...

We were making a good-faith effort to ensure accuracy" in Middle East postings.

He must be lying.

Again during my investigation, something you fail to do yourself. This has been proven a lie...

I asked Electronic Intifada co-founder Ali Abunimah if his outfit played similar games. "We would never encourage people to do that," he said. "There has been no parallel effort on our side whatsoever."

...

Tellingly, it was later revealed that one of the Wikipedia editors who led the attack is actually an employee of Electronic Intifada.

But whatever you do eao, don't let facts get in the way of your ideology.

 

[Johnnny]

You can tell someone uses wikipeida alot, by there perfect spelling of words i cant spell properly off the top of my head, and there lack of understanding the particular poster has on the subject, know what i mean....

What i mean is people throw these words and paragrphs out there in a copy and paste format but dont have a clue what it means

 

[CDNBear]

You can tell someone uses wikipeida alot, by there perfect spelling of words i cant spell properly off the top of my head, and there lack of understanding the particular poster has on the subject, know what i mean....

What i mean is people throw these words and paragrphs out there in a copy and paste format but dont have a clue what it means

Absolutely, like when I caught eao describing the name CAMERA as Orwellian.

A complete rip off, without knowledge as to why, let alone by who.