Almost a year ago, I started using the hashtag #WikiSux on social media.
It’s shorthand for a problem that has gotten out of control with Wikipedia, which describes itself as a “free online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers.”
According to Merriam-Webster, an encyclopedia is “a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically, often by subject.”
The etymology of “encyclopedia” can be traced back to the Greek enkyklios paideia, which means “general education.”
When Wikipedia was founded in 2001, the intent may have been the idealistic creation of a free online source of objective, readily available information with the goal of “general education” to democratize the concept of an encyclopedia and help spread knowledge in the world.
Sadly, a quarter of a century later, Wikipedia has strayed far from these high-falutin’ ideals. Like 180 degrees.
If it ever was a trusted source of objective information and knowledge, Wikipedia has since devolved into a cesspit of disinformation, misinformation, agitprop and pseudointellectual (and unintellectual) anti-Jewish racism.
Journalists like Aaron Bandler and Ashley Rindsberg, along with X/Twitter accounts like WikiBias have meticulously documented and exposed Wikipedia’s utter lack of objectivity and credibility when it comes to certain subjects like Israel, Jewish history (and to an extent, history in general) and Jewish identity, among others.
There are a number of reasons for Wikipedia’s descent into the realm of hate propaganda, including internal rules and protocols that lead to manipulation and biased entries.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia’s governance board and rules authorities refuse to address these issues in any meaningful fashion. Some of the problems are structural: Wikipedia uses a system whereby content is managed by anonymous editors. Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant, and unless the veil of anonymity is pierced, it is virtually impossible to uncover the hidden motives of bad actors who attempt to use Wikipedia to promote false narratives and/or ideological agendas.
For example, it was recently exposed that public-relations firms were paid by Qatar to “edit” Wikipedia pages and downplay Qatari human-rights abuses. For all the violations of Wikipedia’s own policies that have been uncovered, just imagine how many have not been exposed, especially considering the policy of author and editor anonymity. There’s a reason that serious journalistic outlets make sure their reporters use bylines. It’s a simple matter of transparency and credibility. Wikipedia has neither now.
Clearly, pay-to-play Wiki-laundering means that users have no idea about the motives of article authors and editors, and are unable to separate fact from fiction, propaganda from reality.
Wikipedia’s lack of trustworthiness is complicated by how widespread the site has become, frequently appearing at the top of Google searches. It is used by AI engines when creating AI texts, with massive problems resulting from the simple principle of “garbage in, garbage out.”
As suggested, much of Wikipedia’s credibility problem may be structural. Ultimately, there might not be any realistic fixes, especially if the governing authority insists on maintaining author and editor anonymity. It’s not only democracy that dies in darkness. So does journalism and academic integrity.
Until and unless these systemic problems are addressed and fixed, the Wikimedia Foundation, which owns the rights to Wikipedia, should be stripped of its tax-exempt status. There is no reason for American taxpayers to be subsidizing an unreliable, racist propaganda machine.
I am going to propose that the Beverly Hills City Council in Southern California adopt a resolution condemning Wikipedia’s lack of objectivity, its non-existent credibility, while highlighting the dangers of using Wikipedia as a source of fact or general knowledge. The resolution should also urge the U.S. Treasury Department to immediately strip the Wikimedia Foundation of its tax-exempt status, demanding a detailed plan to address and permanently fix the documented abuses of the platform.
Furthermore, I will urge the council to prominently post public warnings about Wikipedia at our public library. Wikipedia does not deserve to be a trusted source of information by anyone interested in actual facts, and the widespread frequency of Wikipedia in search engines means that our library users should be warned about the site’s lack of credibility and reliability.
Such a warning might read:
“To all library users, please be advised that the Beverly Hills City Council has issued a resolution condemning Wikipedia’s lack of credibility. While attempting to give the appearance of objectivity, Wikipedia is unreliable, filled with propaganda and inflammatory bias, and should not be looked at as a trustworthy source of information.
Please use the Beverly Hills Public Library’s extensive resources to access more reliable, real sources of knowledge and information than Wikipedia.”
Our kids, in particular, are susceptible to relying on Wikipedia. To that end, I have also initiated discussions with school-board members on the recommendation that the school district ban the use of Wikipedia on campuses and as a reference source for any school-related projects.
Wikipedia does not deserve the trust of our residents, library users or students. And it’s time for us to call out the dangers of using such an unreliable source of “knowledge,” which has become a repository of half-truths, disinformation, innuendo and anti-Jewish propaganda. Wikipedia’s bias and its erasure of Jewish history and identity make our community less safe.
A little bit of knowledge may indeed be a dangerous thing, but a lot of disinformation most certainly is a dangerous thing.
As a result, Wikipedia in its current form is a very dangerous thing, and it deserves more scrutiny, more countermeasures and more collective action in opposition, not to mention more hashtags.
