In April 2008 a pro-Palestinian group revealed that CAMERA, an Israeli nationalist media watchdog group, recruited a couple dozen people to counter perceived anti-Israeli editing (just read the article). The expected fecal hurricane emerged at ANI with some of the accused calling the emails fabrications ("The (e-mail) protocols of the elder of CAMERA") or accusing EI of hacking/infiltrating the group. Some admins ban a few offenders and issue a statement.

What ARBCOM does: They take the case and, a month after the admins have finished dealing with the problem, issue a milk-water weak ruling, hilariously finding that membership in a group whose express purpose is POV canvassing/meat-puppetry is not itself a policy violation. General amnesty issued for all others involved.

Residual Questions: Why accept a high profile case only to do nothing? How did the information come out?

What the Leak reveals: The point of accepting the case wasn't to look into a POV pushing group but to prevent a witch-hunt for the remaining handful of active CAMERA members, hence the amnesty. A far more lenient stance than those adopted on the Scientology/LaRouche editors. Jayjg shows up to run interference for the group. The leak was not fabricated and came from a group member disturbed by the willingness of a professor and media professional to subvert Wikipedia's intent. Some group members are still active under the same names while the banned editors reincarnated (Zeq=SOL GOLDSTONE, Dajudem=Stellarkid) into the currently active group. So, protecting partisans with agendas is more important than protecting Wikipedia from them. Unless they are Scientologists or something.

*****************************************************************************

From sam.blacketer at googlemail.com Wed Apr 23 20:42:28 2008
From: sam.blacketer at googlemail.com (Sam Blacketer)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:42:28 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
Message-ID: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>

The Israel lobbying case has the potential to cause serious disruption if we
don't get what we do right. Suggestions of organised POV pushing
co-ordinated offwiki are clearly troubling. However I'm not sure, on a
strict reading of the pdf linked on the ANI page, that this is made out. It
is an appeal for people to "ensure accuracy and fairness", "to ensure that
.. articles are free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and
context". On the surface that is exactly what all editors should be doing.

Three important issues that might be settled:

a) Was the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America's
campaign an attempt to subvert NPOV? A clear lead might be helpful.
b) Several real names have been connected to Wikipedia accounts. It looks
like this was in good faith attempts to stop policy being broken, but was it
reasonable?
c) Should Zeq have been blocked for a year? The indefinite topic ban seems
eminently reasonable.

So I'm inclined to accept the case. My concern is that this case has a good
chance of spinning way out of control and into surrogate arguments over
Israel/Palestine. I wanted to check on the list whether others were thinking
along the same lines, because this is one sort of case where we get problems
if the committee presents a divided front.

--
Sam Blacketer
----------
From dgerard at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 20:48:44 2008
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:48:44 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140804231348m7a157e10pcb6724f9370f6585@mail.gmail.com>

2008/4/23 Sam Blacketer <sam.blacketer at googlemail.com>:

> The Israel lobbying case has the potential to cause serious disruption if we
> don't get what we do right. Suggestions of organised POV pushing
> co-ordinated offwiki are clearly troubling. However I'm not sure, on a
> strict reading of the pdf linked on the ANI page, that this is made out. It
> is an appeal for people to "ensure accuracy and fairness", "to ensure that
> .. articles are free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and
> context". On the surface that is exactly what all editors should be doing.
> So I'm inclined to accept the case. My concern is that this case has a good
> chance of spinning way out of control and into surrogate arguments over
> Israel/Palestine. I wanted to check on the list whether others were thinking
> along the same lines, because this is one sort of case where we get problems
> if the committee presents a divided front.


I'd advise the arbcom to just say: "Experienced contributors, please
come to these articles and help our new contributors to add their
valuable insights with NPOV as the foremost concern. We know they're a
morass, but please help anyway. Admins, please don't block or ban
people hair-trigger."

The reason I say this is that we have *endless* campaigns, of varying
degrees of organisation, to POV-push on Wikipedia, and every time (1)
NPOV is the cure for stupid (as Phil Sandifer puts it) (2) we get more
than a few good new contributors out of it, as people realise that
NPOV is actually the best way to make sure their POV is properly
presented in Wikipedia. (Not "pushed", but "properly presented.")

Reiterating this may turn the drama down a bit. We've been here
before, lots and lots.


- d.
----------
From dgerard at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 20:49:57 2008
From: dgerard at gmail.com (David Gerard)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:49:57 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <fbad4e140804231348m7a157e10pcb6724f9370f6585@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
<fbad4e140804231348m7a157e10pcb6724f9370f6585@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fbad4e140804231349i1b4b1a8dve1e8e3c86cc441f5@mail.gmail.com>

2008/4/23 David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:

> I'd advise the arbcom to just say: "Experienced contributors, please
> come to these articles and help our new contributors to add their
> valuable insights with NPOV as the foremost concern. We know they're a
> morass, but please help anyway. Admins, please don't block or ban
> people hair-trigger."


And if they were really pushing Jayjg as a role model, then I'm sure
Jay will have a whale of a time helping these people become good
contributors. (Even if there's little more frustrating than people you
pretty much agree with making dicks of themselves in the process.)


- d.
----------
From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 20:55:17 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:55:17 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <480fa297.2533440a.5c10.5e65@mx.google.com>

Add one issue to yours:

These things are part of the real world. So they happen. So the community
should have it honestly stated, they happen, they aren't easy to deal with,
and these are our norms and how we try to handle them.


Paul.
----------
From newyorkbrad at gmail.com Wed Apr 23 21:24:54 2008
From: newyorkbrad at gmail.com (Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia))
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:24:54 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <480fa297.2533440a.5c10.5e65@mx.google.com>
References: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
<480fa297.2533440a.5c10.5e65@mx.google.com>
Message-ID: <c52819d30804231424q3cd936d9r31e5dc78915f9291@mail.gmail.com>

The first step is to change the name of the request. The case appears to
allege lobbying activity coordinated by an American group, not an Israeli
one.

There is also the question of whether the users who have been blocked based
on the ANI discussion (e.g., Zeq) should be unblocked to allow them to
participate in the case (only). That would seem appropriate based on past
practice.

Newyorkbrad
----------
From charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com Wed Apr 23 21:53:23 2008
From: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com (Charles Matthews)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:53:23 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
Message-ID: <20080423214931.UPIF29112.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>

"Sam Blacketer" wrote

> So I'm inclined to accept the case.

I've voted to reject already (no diffs). Accepting cases on the basis of off-wiki stuff and furore is not a great idea. We'd end up handing down an opinion rather than an Arbitration, IMO. No "executive decisions", please, when we can wait, see, and do a quick case if matters really boil up on the site.

Charles
----------
From sam.blacketer at googlemail.com Wed Apr 23 21:59:39 2008
From: sam.blacketer at googlemail.com (Sam Blacketer)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:59:39 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <6a8d9d700804231453x49506eb3k9ee25c703689d68@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
<6a8d9d700804231453x49506eb3k9ee25c703689d68@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <e75b49f70804231459w556bdb3cl81733d6c08ba2490@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:53 PM, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> From what I can tell this CAMERA thing was mostly a mailing list, with
> few actual Wikipedia editors on it. Yet so far two editors have been
> banned entirely, and a third banned from "Arab-Israeli conflict
> topics" - all based, apparently, not on any specific on-Wikipedia
> actions, but merely for being members of that list. The witchhunt
> continues, with others being accused of membership, or being forced to
> prove they are not. A special template has been invented to tag any
> articles mentioned on the mailing list, with suitably hysterical prose
> to go with it. It might well behoove the Committee to look into which,
> if any, of these actions were appropriate.
>

I'm with Jay on this; I fear unless something comes from Arbcom, there will
be a mass witchhunt of supposed or suspected CAMERA mailing list editors -
when it's all really a storm in a teacup.

--
Sam Blacketer
----------
From blnguyen2230 at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 00:46:33 2008
From: blnguyen2230 at gmail.com (Blnguyen)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:46:33 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <20080423214931.UPIF29112.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
References: <20080423214931.UPIF29112.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
Message-ID: <87ffb69e0804231746q48bf6b88ida7d072e163fb5ae@mail.gmail.com>

Except that a few guys have been banned by Moreschi based purely on emails.
If Moreschi was petitioning to have these guys banned by Arbcom, it would be
different.

Imagine some admins being desysopped for random racist ranting on IRC (it
happens)

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 2:53 PM, Charles Matthews <
charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:

> "Sam Blacketer" wrote
>
> > So I'm inclined to accept the case.
----------
From user.jpgordon at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 01:16:18 2008
From: user.jpgordon at gmail.com (Josh Gordon)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:16:18 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <87ffb69e0804231746q48bf6b88ida7d072e163fb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080423214931.UPIF29112.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
<87ffb69e0804231746q48bf6b88ida7d072e163fb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <99c65f730804231816y35f2a664sd6b6e7fa3d5343b5@mail.gmail.com>

Well, except. This isn't random racist ranting; this isn't about opinions
held or ideas expressed. This is about a specific plan to gain a POV
advantage by gaming the system.

Zeq's either being disingenuous or an idiot; I can't tell which. "I won't
answer any questions on Wikipedia about anything other than what I've said
on Wikipedia". Can that be interpreted any way but "yes, those emails are
authentic and I'm zeqzeq2 at whatever.com"?

--
--jpgordon ????
----------
From blnguyen2230 at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 01:19:10 2008
From: blnguyen2230 at gmail.com (Blnguyen)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:19:10 -0700
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <99c65f730804231816y35f2a664sd6b6e7fa3d5343b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080423214931.UPIF29112.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
<87ffb69e0804231746q48bf6b88ida7d072e163fb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
<99c65f730804231816y35f2a664sd6b6e7fa3d5343b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87ffb69e0804231819i103dc6b3i52a4e5571833db1b@mail.gmail.com>

Well he could always have lied up front, like many people who reincarnate to
get a clean block log.
----------
From jayjg99 at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 01:51:57 2008
From: jayjg99 at gmail.com (jayjg)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:51:57 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <99c65f730804231816y35f2a664sd6b6e7fa3d5343b5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20080423214931.UPIF29112.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>
<87ffb69e0804231746q48bf6b88ida7d072e163fb5ae@mail.gmail.com>
<99c65f730804231816y35f2a664sd6b6e7fa3d5343b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6a8d9d700804231851s16f8b0e2n9c3cd3709e7d486a@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Josh Gordon <user.jpgordon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, except. This isn't random racist ranting; this isn't about opinions
> held or ideas expressed. This is about a specific plan to gain a POV
> advantage by gaming the system.
>
> Zeq's either being disingenuous or an idiot; I can't tell which. "I won't
> answer any questions on Wikipedia about anything other than what I've said
> on Wikipedia". Can that be interpreted any way but "yes, those emails are
> authentic and I'm zeqzeq2 at whatever.com"?


It's obvious that Zeq was on the mailing list. However, the real issue
is, what did he do?
----------
From stephen.bain at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 02:38:17 2008
From: stephen.bain at gmail.com (Stephen Bain)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:38:17 +1000
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f30e42de0804231938l378b4109n6dd92acfc80629d9@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Sam Blacketer
<sam.blacketer at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> So I'm inclined to accept the case. My concern is that this case has a good
> chance of spinning way out of control and into surrogate arguments over
> Israel/Palestine. I wanted to check on the list whether others were thinking
> along the same lines, because this is one sort of case where we get problems
> if the committee presents a divided front.

I'm also inclined to accept, and I think your summary of the issues in
play is a good one.

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> I've voted to reject already (no diffs). Accepting cases on the basis of off-wiki stuff and furore is not a great idea. We'd end up handing down an opinion rather than an Arbitration, IMO. No "executive decisions", please, when we can wait, see, and do a quick case if matters really boil up on the site.

Normally I'd agree, but I think (at least) three users getting banned
on the basis of this business certainly counts as things boiling up.
Accepting this would at least funnel the hysteria into relatively
limited channels.

--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com
----------
From charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 24 07:55:21 2008
From: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com (Charles Matthews)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 8:55:21 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
Message-ID: <20080424075418.XRJD29112.aamtaout04-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>

Blnguyen wrote
>
> Except that a few guys have been banned by Moreschi based purely on emails.
> If Moreschi was petitioning to have these guys banned by Arbcom, it would be
> different.

We may have to lift some bans, based on Moreschi exceeding any reasonable interpretation of his right to act in that way. We can do that without a case, though.

Charles
----------
From charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com Thu Apr 24 08:05:59 2008
From: charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com (Charles Matthews)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 9:05:59 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
Message-ID: <20080424080713.MOSU17393.aamtaout02-winn.ispmail.ntl.com@smtp.ntlworld.com>

> I'd be tempted to accept it for much that reason -- if only to make it very
> clear that McCarthy-style questionings are not an acceptable response.
>
> Kirill

If we want merely a "clarification" and unban some people, we can do that quickly, on a motion. A large-scale case is likely to drag on, and if at all based on off-wiki evidence will prove troublesome, I think.

The case acceptance is a good place to get opinions such as Kirill's circulated and noted. What good can we do here? I'm thinking much more in terms of trying to have a calmer response on-wiki, than to prevent off-wiki "lobbying" discussions in the future (we have no chance of doing that).

Charles
----------
From paulaugust.wp at gmail.com Thu Apr 24 14:58:00 2008
From: paulaugust.wp at gmail.com (Paul August)
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:58:00 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] Israel lobbying request
In-Reply-To: <3f797b9a0804232228u51b0b7fegea856a12e32efcfd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e75b49f70804231342l3a2b5d8es982cc6809e2baec@mail.gmail.com>
<f30e42de0804231938l378b4109n6dd92acfc80629d9@mail.gmail.com>
<3f797b9a0804232228u51b0b7fegea856a12e32efcfd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29C10990-89BA-45BF-8CB1-A770AC384F9B@gmail.com>


On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:28 AM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:38 PM, Stephen Bain
> <stephen.bain at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Sam Blacketer
>> <sam.blacketer at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > So I'm inclined to accept the case. My concern is that this case
>> has a good
>> > chance of spinning way out of control and into surrogate
>> arguments over
>> > Israel/Palestine. I wanted to check on the list whether others
>> were thinking
>> > along the same lines, because this is one sort of case where we
>> get problems
>> > if the committee presents a divided front.
>>
>> I'm also inclined to accept, and I think your summary of the
>> issues in
>> play is a good one.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:53 AM, Charles Matthews
>> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I've voted to reject already (no diffs). Accepting cases on the
>> basis of off-wiki stuff and furore is not a great idea. We'd end
>> up handing down an opinion rather than an Arbitration, IMO. No
>> "executive decisions", please, when we can wait, see, and do a
>> quick case if matters really boil up on the site.
>>
>> Normally I'd agree, but I think (at least) three users getting banned
>> on the basis of this business certainly counts as things boiling up.
>> Accepting this would at least funnel the hysteria into relatively
>> limited channels.
>
> I'd be tempted to accept it for much that reason -- if only to make
> it very clear that McCarthy-style questionings are not an
> acceptable response.
>
> Kirill

Yes.

Paul August


From ft2.wiki at gmail.com Sun May 11 09:34:32 2008
From: ft2.wiki at gmail.com (FT2)
Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 10:34:32 +0100
Subject: [Arbcom-l] FW: Evidence from Shalom on the CAMERA lobbying case
Message-ID: <4826be23.19e7300a.06df.38f5@mx.google.com>

Forwarded by request. The user gave their real name, but I have removed it.
Other than that, it's exactly as sent.




From: Shalom
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 8:39 AM
To: FT2
Subject: Evidence from Shalom on the CAMERA lobbying case

Dear FT2:
?
I've been hesitant to reveal my awareness of the CAMERA lobbying campaign on
Wikipedia, which is now at arbitration.? For reasons of privacy, which will
become apparent, I prefer not to give a full report in public view.
?
I live in the Boston area, which is where CAMERA headquarters are located.?
Andrea Levin, the director of CAMERA, once gave a lecture at Maimonides
School, where I was a student until 2001.
?
I am an Orthodox Jew and a religious Zionist.? I celebrated Israel's 60th
anniversary of independence a few days ago.? Broadly speaking, I support
CAMERA's goal to provide Americans with neutral information that presents
Israel's side of the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians.? There is
nothing more frustrating than to read about an Israeli attack on militants
in Gaza where the author conveniently forgets to mention that Hamas has been
shooting rockets at the Israeli town of Sderot for the last seven years.?
CAMERA organizes letter-writing campaigns and other methods of advocacy to
combat pro-Palestinian bias.? They even managed to get an on-air correction
from one of the major TV news networks which had used a video clip to
illustrate an Israeli attack when that video clip was showing an unrelated
event, if I recall correctly.? Honesty, in media reporting and elsewhere, is
a virtue I fully support.
?
In the context of Wikipedia, most of my current article writing is
translating articles about Israeli places and roads from the Hebrew
Wikipedia into English.? In the broadest sense, writing about Israel on
Wikipedia is a form of advocacy, but I do it with the most peaceful
motives.? Simply, our encyclopedia needs articles about small towns and
villages in Israel, and I am able to write those articles.
?
On March 24, my mother forwarded me a message from a family friend, who
himself received it from the jewishsharon at yahoogroups.net email list.? At
that time I had quit Wikipedia, but I was still reading the noticeboards, so
I took notice of a posting at the Conflict of Interest noticeboard about
edit warring at the CAMERA article.? I understood what it was about, so I
posted?the email message anonymously.? (Someone else took a few minutes to
format it.)? My IP address was 71.174.111.245.?
?
Link to Conflict of Interest Noticeboard archive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Con...oticeboard/Arch
ive_23#An_email_that_may_be_relevant
?
EdJohnston left a message on that IP's talk page seeking confirmation of my
source for this message.? I logged in under an alternate account name,
User:Kivel.? (My sisters call me "Kivel" as a nickname.)? From that account,
which has email enabled to the same address (yrobinso at gmail.com) as my main
account, I forwarded the message to EdJohnston.? I have not been involved in
the CAMERA lobbying dispute since then, but I am generally aware of recent
developments.
?
I sent Gilead Ini the following message on March?24?in response to his
request for editors to help advocate for Israel on Wikipedia:
________________________________
?
Dear Gilead:
?
As a recently retired Wikipedia insider (User:Shalom) I am not able to help
directly with your stated mission, but I can offer a few points of advice.
?
Wikipedia is a dot-org, not a dot-com.? This is actually very important to
me.? I've contributed hours of my life to this project because I believe in
its goals as a volunteer nonprofit.? The homepage of the English Wikipedia
is en.wikipedia.org, and of the Hebrew Wikipedia is he.wikipedia.org.? There
are about 250 language editions.
?
Be careful not to fight too hard about Israel-related articles (or any other
articles).? The "three-revert rule" prohibits users from undoing someone
else's edits more than three times in a 24-hour period in order to promote
discussion.? There is an elaborate dispute resolution process, building from
third opinion to mediation and finally to the Arbitration Committee, which
has heard at least three cases in the last three years relating to editors
fighting about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
?
Your intention probably is to monitor some high-profile articles on Israel,
but you should also work to create new articles.? Believe it or not, about
half of the towns and villages in Israel don't have articles about them on
the English Wikipedia.? Before I started translating articles from the
Hebrew Wikipedia, it was more than half.? Completing the English Wikipedia's
coverage of non-controversial Israel topics is a great way to advocate for
Israel without getting bogged down in conflicts.
?
Best regards,
_______________________________
?
It's hard for me to endorse a ban on an organization whose goals I support,
but I reluctantly concede that the methods of the CAMERA advocacy team on
Wikipedia are hostile to our collaborative enterprise.? I wish my advice had
reached more receptive eyes.


?
I encourage you to share this message with the Arbitration Committee email
list, and please tell me that you did so.? What happens from there is beyond
my control.? If you wish to state publicly that I provided information
relevant to this case, I have no objection.
?
If you want me to forward email messages in my archive directly to you
personally, or to the Committee's email list, please ask.
?
Shalom
-----------
From jwales at wikia.com Wed May 14 23:49:39 2008
From: jwales at wikia.com (Jimmy Wales)
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 19:49:39 -0400
Subject: [Arbcom-l] [Fwd: Anti-Israel Agenda of Wikipedia]
Message-ID: <482B7A93.60702@wikia.com>

FYI

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Anti-Israel Agenda of Wikipedia
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 21:30:11 +0200
From: Deb <ddlj at iafrica.com>
To: <jwales at wikia.com>



Dear Sir



As you are the founder, I believe, of Wikipedia, I feel it is imperative
that you are made aware of the blatant agenda that is occurring on this
very well-known resource.



It is clear from the report below there is a clear anti-Israel agenda
which undermines the democratic character of Wikipedia and serves only
to tarnish its image as an objective purveyor of information.



I have pasted for your information the following disturbing
?HonestReporting? report on Wikipedia.



Hopefully Sir, in order to retain the credibility of your site you will
put a stop to this horrendous campaign of misinformation,
disinformation, lies, deceit and the delegitimisation of a people and
their nationhood.



I cordially await your reply.



Thank you,



Regards

Debbie Mankowitz

The Association For Fair Media

Johannesburg

South Africa

*Exposed - Anti-Israeli Subversion on Wikipedia *

*Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,*

Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia anyone can edit, may strive for pure
democracy, but that doesn't mean it's always fair. Our colleagues at
CAMERA learned this the hard way last month when their effort to fight
anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia ended in several members being banned from
the site and bad press for the organization. CAMERA's campaign involved
recruiting volunteers and instructing them in the basics of Wikipedia
participation. The Palestinian advocacy group, Electronic Intifada (EI),
however, branded the effort "a plan to rewrite history" and filed a
bitter complaint with Wikipedia administrators, resulting in unusually
stiff penalties for the CAMERA volunteers involved.

EI's chief evidence against CAMERA was a series of private e-mails
exchanged by CAMERA staff and their volunteers. An EI staff member
infiltrated the group and turned the e-mails over to Wikipedia, claiming
they revealed a plot by CAMERA to manipulate Wikipedia and to pass off
"crude propaganda as fact." An investigation followed, resulting in two
indefinite bans and several shorter-term bans for CAMERA members.

**A closer look at Wikipedia's inner workings, however, reveals there is
more to the story. Research carried out by Social Media expert Dr. Andre
Oboler, a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor, reveals that it was EI,
not CAMERA, that manipulated Wikipedia to achieve its ideological goals.**

Dr. Oboler and HonestReporting also found that despite Wikipedia's clear
policy against political advocacy, initiatives such as "Wiki Project
Palestine" and the Yahoo group "Wikipedians for Palestine" used the
Wikipedia platform to promote their ideological views, largely unopposed
by the Wikipedia community. CAMERA, however, was singled out by the
administrators in order to "send a strong message to lobbying groups,
campaigns and other advocacy groups.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Statement_re_Wikilobby_campaign>"

*WIKIPEDIA AND THE NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW*

With nearly 60 million visitors a month
<http://siteanalytics.compete.com/wikipedia.org+youtube.com/?metric=uv>
and 10 million entries in 253 languages, Wikipedia has become a primary
resource for students across the world. A Google search for almost any
topic will return a Wikipedia entry at or near the top of the list of
results.

But despite its popularity, Wikipedia does not always provide the most
accurate information. What sets the encyclopedia apart from other
sources is its reliance on the "wisdom of crowds
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds>" - allowing any user
who spots an error in any entry to simply change it himself, anonymously
if he chooses.

Not surprisingly, this feature turns controversial topics such as
"Jerusalem" or "Terrorism" into battlegrounds between people with
sharply different agendas. To counter the problem, Wikipedia established
the neutral point of view
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view> (NPOV) as
one of its guiding principles. The NPOV policy is meant to ensure all
sides are presented equally on a topic until a consensus eventually
emerges, a process that can take many months of intense debate.

Unfortunately, NPOV is another noble goal not always applied equally by
Wikipedia users. Dr. Oboler tracked the activity of Wikipedia user
Bangpound, an individual revealed to be EI staff member Benjamin
Doherty, who appears to be looking to spin EI's view of CAMERA's
campaign. Here is how Dr. Oboler describes his activity:

At **14:08** on April 21 EI boasted publicly to someone thought to be a
member of CAMERA's staff that CAMERA and its editor have been exposed.
He links to the EI article about CAMERA [accusing CAMERA of a Wikipedia
conspiracy]. At **14:26** the same person edits the CAMERA page making
it say "**CAMERA also attempts to use Wikipedia to covertly disseminate
discredited pro-Israeli propaganda.**" They add that EI have e-mails
that "**outlined an attempt to subvert Wikipedia editorial controls and
leadership structures**" - an accusation designed to make Wikipedia
editors see red. At **14:44** they edited the Wikipedia page on reliable
sources adding "**CAMERA cannot possibly be considered a reliable
source**" and again they outline their accusations. These edits appear
aimed both to discredit CAMERA and to promote EI. It was clever
marketing as well as clever advocacy, and it took under half an hour.
[For the full transcripts of these edits see Dr. Oboler's research
<http://www.zionismontheweb.org/internet_warfare/the_role_of_Electronic_Intifada_in_the_Camera_story.htm>

on Zionism on the Web].

But according to Dr. Oboler, EI's manipulations on Wikipedia pale in
comparison to other pro-Palestinian groups such as "Wiki Project
Palestine" - an effort supposedly aimed at improving articles related to
Palestinian culture and society but misused to promote a political
agenda, and the Yahoo group "Wikipedians for Palestine."

The real organized effort [to recruit outsiders to promote
pro-Palestinian views on Wikipedia] appears to be from "Wikipedians for
Palestine," a group that was advertised to individuals both on Wikipedia
and through at least one Palestinian campaigning organization. That
group was active for over two years. It was detected, questions were
raised on and off Wikipedia, and then ?nothing seemed to happen, then or
now.

People commenting on the CAMERA case who were shown to be involved in
this Palestinian group first proclaimed the group's innocence. Then they
made a number of misleading claims off Wikipedia, stating, for example,
that they "never recruited neophytes to edit Wikiepdia," and that their
group is "independent and never bankrolled and backed by any
organization, let alone one as well staffed and funded as CAMERA." They
were challenged by an administrator to give access to their group so the
archives could be checked, as was done to CAMERA. They promptly deleted
the group - destroying all archives.

Wikipedia apparently dropped the issue because no one had infiltrated
the group or had evidence revealing the content of the deleted archives.
According to Dr. Oboler, it is impossible to know exactly what it
accomplished over the past two years.

What is clear is that its claims on the group's home page were designed
not only to defend themselves but also to attack CAMERA. The group may
or may not have actually recruited people who were not editors, but they
certainly tried to. The penalties to CAMERA are for trying to recruit
people, not for any problematic editing on Wikipedia (itself a very
unusual thing in a Wikiepdia investigation - normally only actions on
Wikipedia are considered).

*COMMON FORMS OF ANTI-ISRAEL **B**IAS ON WIKIPEDIA*

Anti-Israel bias in Wikipedia takes three primary forms: vandalism,
blatantly false allegations, and attempts to marginalize the Israeli
perspective.

Vandalism, such as efforts to change Jerusalem
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem> to 'Capital of Palestine,'
tends to be relatively harmless. Editors discover these kinds of changes
quickly and "revert" them to the 'community consensus
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus>'. Wikipedia allows
editors to be notified by email if someone has changed a favorite entry.
It also keeps a history of all changes, making it easy to restore the
original content.

A more insidious form of bias is the use of false information. An
example can be seen on the 'Egypt <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt>'
'Camp David Accords <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_david_accords>'
entry, where clear anti-Semitic incitement in the Egyptian press was
dismissed as simple 'Anti-Zionist criticism'. This entry alone attracts
150,000 viewers a year, and the related 'Egypt
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt>' entry, which doesn't mention the
issue at all, is viewed 3.5 million times annually.

More common are attempts to marginalize Israeli and Zionist content and
lend more weight to the Palestinian or Arab narrative. The entry
"Massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_committed_during_the_1948_Arab-Israeli_war>,"

for example, lists only those allegedly committed by Jews. Another
example is the original 'Hebrews <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrews>'
entry, which fails to mention the undisputed fact that Jews always
prayed in Hebrew, and that it became their primary everyday language in
Israel since the early 20th century.

This category also includes entries that serve to diminish the
perception of threats against Israel. For example, several Iran articles
are apologetic about Iranian president Mahmoud Admadinejad's
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad#Criticisms_of_statements_and_social_issues>

calls for erasing Israel from the map, reassuringly explaining the
threat as mistranslation of Farsi, which supposedly only meant 'erase
off the pages of time.' However they fail to mention that the same
slogan was also painted on ballistic missiles in Iranian army parades.

*PRO-PALESTINIAN ADVOCACY: WIKIPROJECT **PALESTINE*

A WikiProject is a Wikipedia's community feature allowing people with
common interests to collaborate on particular encyclopedia topics. A
project's homepage is essentially a central billboard allowing users to
share articles of interest with the Wikipedia community.

The 'Palestine Project
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palestine>' goals,
stated on its page, fall within the accepted Wikipedia guidelines: To
"Maintain information on Palestine including history, culture, geography
and contemporary political, socio-economic and ideological context;
Improve Palestine-related articles by expansion, verification and
copyediting." And finally: "Be thorough and watch for POV in
particularly controversial articles."

Despite the warning, however, the actual content promoted by the project
appears geared towards online advocacy. There are 210 articles marked as
"high importance". About half are related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Many appear because of their influence on public opinion on the
Palestinian cause.

In its hall of fame for best articles, the Palestine Project page lists
four best biographies. One is by Norman Finkelstein
<http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=8&x_nameinnews=169>, a
staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, whose controversial
bestseller "The Holocaust Industry" accused Jews of exploiting the
Holocaust for financial and political gain.

There is also a large number of small articles that appear to have been
posted to add weight to the Project's page, giving it the appearance of
significant substance. Many of these articles are posted by anonymous
users so that they will be difficult to track. This is particularly
suspicious behavior considering the community-building nature of
WikiProjects.

According to Dr. Oboler, the entire project appears to be an organized
effort to promote the Palestinian point of view on Wikipedia.

In trying to kill off an attempt by CAMERA to get pro-Israel people
involved in Wikipedia, Electronic Intifada may just have thrown a
spotlight on the real and far more successful campaign to control
Wikipedia... the campaign that caused CAMERA so much concern in the
first place.

*THE PRO**B**LEMS ON WIKIPEDIA*

A study <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html> of
user involvement on Social Media sites such as Wikipedia suggests that
only 1% of site visitors become heavy contributors. But according to Dr.
Oboler, the involvement of more people and greater diversity ultimately
benefits sites like Wikipedia:

CAMERA was right about the problems on Wikipedia. People should consider
getting involved in Wikipedia and making use of the resources they have
(such as books) to improve the accuracy of articles they take an
interest in (on any topic imaginable). The first goal must be to improve
Wikipedia. That this helps reverse manipulation of the truth is one side
effect. Good well-sourced arguments will not only expose mistakes, they
will also make Wikipedia better.

Editing Wikipedia is not hard and, in time, people will learn how it
works and become part of the community. If you do want to get involved,
pay attention to the policies, the five pillars and other information
you will be shown when you join. If you run into problems there are
plenty of people on Wikipedia more than happy to help or provide clarity
about Wikipedia itself.

The truth will win out, but someone needs to make sure it is heard,
footnoted and properly sourced.

//Dr. Oboler is also a post-doctoral fellow in Political Science at
////B////ar-Ilan//// ////University//// where he is researching online
public diplomacy. This research covers Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, Google
Earth and Wikipedia among others online platforms. More on his research
can be seen at ////http://www.zionismontheweb.org/internet_warfare/////
. Details on Wikipedia (the background data of which was shared with
HonestReporting) are being added during this week.//



*Honest**Reporting**.** com** *

*Click here to comment on this special report.
<http://backspin.typepad.com/backspin/2008/05/special-report.html>*

*Thank you for your involvement in responding
to media bias.*