The new Hasbara-esque scandal (but worse) -

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

This subforum is for general discussion of Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. For a glossary of terms frequently used in such discussions, please refer to Wikipedia:Glossary. For a glossary of musical terms, see here. Other useful links:

Akahele.org • Wikipedia-Watch • Wikitruth • WP:AN • WikiEN-L/Foundation-L (mailing lists) • Citizendium forums

The new Hasbara-esque scandal (but worse)

Options

yow	Post #1
Neophyte Group: Contributors Posts: 19 Joined: Member No.: 2,374	From Electronic Intifada A pro-Israel pressure group is 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. A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a "war" on Wikipedia. A 13 March action alert signed by Gilead Ini, a "Senior Research Analyst" at CAMERA, calls for "volunteers who can work as 'editors' to ensure" that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia are "free of bias and error, and include necessary facts and context." However, subsequent communications indicate that the group not only wanted to keep the effort secret from the media, the public, and Wikipedia administrators, but that the material they intended to introduce included discredited claims that could smear Palestinians and Muslims and conceal Israel's true history. AND MUCH MORE.

Replies

Saltimbanco	Post #2
Who watches the watchmen? Group: Regulars Posts: 590 Joined: Member No.: 228	What would it have to become, though? I mean, is it completely out of reach? Would they have to become Brittanica? Or could some modification of the Wiki way accomplish it?

guy	Post #3
Postmaster General Group: Inactive Posts: 4,294 Joined: From: London Member No.: 23	QUOTE(Saltimbanco @ Fri 25th April 2008, 3:03am) What would it have to become, though? I mean, is it completely out of reach? Would they have to become Brittanica? Or could some modification of the Wiki way accomplish it? There are those who doubt the impartiality of Britannica. QUOTE(Saltimbanco @ Fri 25th April 2008, 4:40am) You misspelled "especially." You misspelled Britannica.

jorge	Post #4
Postmaster Group: On Vacation Posts: 1,910 Joined: Member No.: 29	QUOTE(guy @ Fri 25th April 2008, 9:05am) There are those who doubt the impartiality of Britannica. Source?

Lar	Post #5
"His blandness goes to 11!" Group: Regulars Posts: 2,116 Joined: From: A large LEGO storage facility Member No.: 4,290	QUOTE(jorge @ Fri 25th April 2008, 5:17am) QUOTE(guy @ Fri 25th April 2008, 9:05am) There are those who doubt the impartiality of Britannica. Source? I am just some schlub, not anyone notable or authoritative but I certainly do doubt it, from the limited sample I've taken so far. Note that what I actually mean is I "doubt the impartiality of the author(s) of the article(s)" and "doubt the effectiveness of the process of subsequently making the article impartial during editorial review"... and further, that's just my opinion. It would be far more meaningful if an SME on impartiality had that view, of course, instead of someone like me who is admittedly partisan. See my 2 recent blog postings on this, free access and free access "gotcha".