Wikipedia is 'under attack' as it faces pressure to remove information
Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia where anyone can cite reliable sources and build articles, has long been known to strive for accurate and neutral information. However, it is now facing pressure from certain organizations and individuals to remove information, and is in a state of being 'attacked,' as technology media The Verge has summarized the problem.
How Wikipedia survives while the rest of the internet breaks | The Verge
Over the decades since its inception, Wikipedia has developed three core guidelines and a set of fundamental principles known as the ' Five Pillars ': maintaining a neutral viewpoint, maintaining verifiability, and prohibiting original research.
Wikipedia editors don't try to verify the truth, but instead evaluate the reliability of sources by looking at signals like whether they're cited by reliable sources and whether corrections have been issued if there are any errors. And when there's a conflict of opinion, they maintain the spirit of the Wikipedia project by discussing which side's position is consistent with Wikipedia's basic principles and building a consensus, rather than trying to determine who's right, according to The Verge.
For example, at a rally following President Donald Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2025, Elon Musk made a gesture similar to a Nazi salute, causing a furor among the public, who subsequently claimed 'Elon Musk made a Nazi salute.'
On that day, an editor named PickleG13 added a sentence to Musk's Wikipedia page, citing a Jerusalem Post article, saying, 'Musk appeared to give the Nazi salute.' PickleG13 explained his reasoning by writing, 'While this controversy will be debated, it is true that Musk may have given the Hitler salute, and that has been reported.' However, two minutes later, another editor removed the statement, citing 'Wikipedia's strict standards regarding the inclusion of derogatory information in biographies of living people.'
However, PickleG13's point was correct, and that evening, a worldwide debate erupted over Musk's actions. Discussion also began on Wikipedia, with many arguing that it was clearly a Nazi salute, that it was merely a hand wave, that it only looked that way because it was a still image, and that Barack Obama also gave a Nazi salute, yet biased media outlets ignored the point. Ultimately, a consensus was reached that 'On January 20, Musk extended his right arm upward twice toward the crowd, and many compared the gesture to a Nazi salute, but Musk denied that the gesture had any meaning,' and the entry was re-added. It took roughly 7,000 words of deliberation to decide whether to add just three sentences, and The Verge noted, 'This was the moment Wikipedia's process worked as intended.'
Because Wikipedia is theoretically open to anyone, it's difficult for a country or organization to persecute contributors, and because it's funded by donations, governments can't cut off funding or boycott advertisers. Furthermore, Wikipedia is incredibly popular and useful in an age where unreliable information is being spread by AI, because 'there's at least an effort to maintain neutrality and verifiability,' even governments known for their strict censorship have hesitated to block it.
However, The Verge points out that instead, some are deploying sophisticated censorship strategies one after another.
One such case concerns
Two months after this incident, ANI filed a lawsuit against the Wikimedia Foundation. The lawsuit revealed that several IP addresses used in the edits belonged to representatives of ANI, who were attempting to remove information unfavorable to the company. The company claimed that Wikipedia's statements were defamatory and demanded the disclosure of the identities of the three editors. When the Wikimedia Foundation refused, an Indian judge announced that he would 'request the government to block the site.' Furthermore, a dedicated page was created for the case, stating that 'demanding the disclosure of the editors' identities constitutes censorship.' The judge condemned this as 'tantamount to insulting behavior' and demanded the Foundation remove the page within 36 hours. The Foundation complied.
This lawsuit reportedly shocked editors worldwide. Despite the fact that an open letter calling on the Wikimedia Foundation to protect the editors' anonymity was signed by over 1,300 people, the largest number of letters ever sent to the Foundation, the Wikimedia Foundation's decision to confidentially disclose the editors' identities to the judge sparked outrage among editors. This is an unusual move for an organization with a history of taking a hardline stance against censorship. An Indian editor interviewed by The Verge said, 'As a result of this persecution, many editors are leaving Wikipedia, fearing for their safety.'
The Verge also points out that, due to the lack of direct pressure on the Wikimedia Foundation, a kind of gray zone information warfare is also being waged. For example, after the Chinese government suppressed protests against the Hong Kong National Security Law in 2019, mainland Chinese editors insisted on publishing pro-government media articles that described the protests as 'riots' and 'terrorist attacks.' They conspired offline and used fake accounts to gain access to other editors' IP addresses and discussed plans to abuse this access to expose the identities of dissidents to police. Shortly thereafter, the Wikimedia Foundation announced that it had banned or restricted over a dozen mainland Chinese editors, citing infringements of the project and the resulting physical harm to some users.
Following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the Russian government imposed a series of fines on the foundation for publishing false information about its military, and the head of Wikimedia Russia was deemed a 'foreign agent' and forced to resign from his professorship at Moscow State University. In neighboring Belarus, editor Mark Bernstein was sentenced to three years of house arrest after being arrested and his personal information docked by pro-Russian groups.
Additionally, people are using AI to add seemingly plausible false or biased information, increasing the burden on editors. Harassment, ideological editing campaigns, government investigations, and lawsuits continue, even if they have no impact, making the editing process more difficult and increasing the likelihood of burnout for current editors, The Verge points out. Longtime Wikipedia editor Lane Raspberry said, 'This is a crisis for Wikipedia's survival.'
Related Posts:
in Posted by log1p_kr