| Wikipedia in the press |
|---|
Since its inception in 2001, Wikipedia has garnered substantial media attention. The following is a list of the project's press coverage received in 2025, sorted chronologically. Per WP:PRESS, this page excludes coverage exclusively on a single WP-article, coverage of (some aspect of) the project overall is wanted.
Joe Truzman, an expert on Palestinian militant groups with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, said the latest online controversy highlights the often inaccurate nature of Wikipedia's entries about Israel.
His first project was to try and add a Wikipedia page for every airport in Canada, no matter how small. Then he moved on to weather monitoring equipment. He was made an administrator after just months as an editor. He said that now, the process is quite rigorous, but at the time, it was pretty informal.
The Heritage Foundation plans to 'identify and target' volunteer editors on Wikipedia who it says are 'abusing their position' by publishing content the group believes to be antisemitic
"The slideshow says the group's 'targeting methodologies' would include creating fake Wikipedia user accounts to try to trick editors into identifying themselves by sharing personal information or clicking on malicious tracking links that can identify people who click on them. It is unclear whether this has begun," according to the Forward.
This is how you get every Wikipedia article vaguely mentioning Israel becoming a catalogue of anti-Zionism.
Whatever would they do with editors' personal information? Send them fruit baskets, surely!
What did Wikipedia do with that $31.2 million? It gave much of it out as grant money. In the Middle East, it funded the Arab Reports for Investigative Journalism, which helps train journalists in Arab countries. In Brazil, it funded the InternetLab which spent the money researching racial disparities and internet access in the country. In North America, it gave money to the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, which helped fund local newsgathering.
And this must be said: The cascade of newish terms ending in "cide" — "scholasticide," "educide" and "domicide" — all have one thing in common on Wikipedia: The current war in Gaza is always used as an example.
The Heritage Foundation launched a new effort to track down volunteer editors on Wikipedia who are publishing what they believe to be antisemitic content.
By creating and deploying a new tool called INFOGAP, the researchers used artificial intelligence to look at how biographical information about LGBT people is presented across the English, Russian, and French versions of Wikipedia and found inconsistencies in how they are portrayed.
The pressure on Wikipedia comes as the online, user-generated encyclopedia has been under fire from some Jewish organizations for its coverage of the war in Gaza and for labeling the Anti-Defamation League a "generally unreliable source" on the war. Wikipedia says the ADL is a pro-Israel activist group that declares nearly any criticism of Jews or Israel antisemitic.
Speaking to The Journal, Uí Ríordáin – who is full-time employee at Wikipedia Community Ireland – said that Vicipéid has helped to boost the confidence of students and other non-native speakers in their ability to use Irish.
The leader of the rating was an article about Oleksandr Syrsky, the commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which was viewed over 1.1 million times. In second place is an article about Ukraine, and the top three is an article about Ukrainian boxer Oleksandr Usyk.
The differences between Facebook, Instagram and Wikipedia are as vast as the Gulf of America, though: the goal of Wikipedia is to compile and spread accurate information. That is not the aim of Facebook, Instagram, or any other social network, and has never been one of its strong points.
...the first non-sponsored, non-AI search result: an entry from one of the most reliable places on the internet, Wikipedia. If I'd written that last sentence at the start of my career, no editor would have allowed it into print. You can't trust something that anyone can edit, the thinking went, and so it became a bad word in journalism and academia. Don't cite it; don't even look at it. Or if you do, for God's sake, don't let anyone see you.
Aravind Srinivas criticizes Wikipedia's neutrality, urging for unbiased alternatives.
Beyond its functional value, Wikipedia has become a cultural phenomenon. It has inspired memes, informed countless debates, and even become a trusted companion for breaking news. Its transparent editing history also provides a unique window into how society's understanding of events evolves over time.
Users on X were quick to react to the website turning 24.
It's always fascinating to me how, by and large, every page is so much better than I think it will be. Really high-energy, maybe "truth optional" pages for topics like cryptocurrencies. It's a small miracle that they're as orderly and reasonable as they end up being.
According to Bader, so far, no structured French group is working on Palestine, unlike the "other side" namely Israel, which is said to be "organized." On the English Wikipedia, the pro-Palestinians are "more numerous, they have been attacked, they have been targeted, but they are successful," Bader specifies. [Google translate]
Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), which is the site's version of the Supreme Court, is on the verge of issuing indefinite topic bans to eight editors involved in the Israel-Palestine topic area, most of them of being anti-Israel editors.
Multiple anti-Israel Wikipedia editors are likely to be topic-banned after spreading misinformation and hate across the site, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) announced on Friday.
On the side of Wikimedia France, whose ideological orientations Le Figaro has already reported , murky links have existed for several years between members of the board of directors and the association " les sans pagEs " which pays employees to produce Wikipedia content on people belonging to groups identified as minorities and underrepresented in the encyclopedia.[Google translate]
You could just hit "random page" and not get bored for at least as long as it takes to convince your boss that you're working.
"Since legacy media propaganda is considered a "valid" source by Wikipedia, it naturally simply becomes an extension of legacy media propaganda!", he wrote on X.
"Wikipedia is completely ideologically captured. Deserves $0 in donations until they re-balance", the author wrote. After seeing the post, Musk chimed in demanding action taken against Wikipedia. "Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored!", he wrote.
"Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored!" Musk wrote on X. "Stop donating to Wokepedia until they restore balance to their editing authority." However, Wales replied to Musk, defending the site and criticizing the tech CEO for stirring up anger.
The editor of the blog "The Wikipedia Flood," however, said the topic bans are barely enough, especially given the large number of editors involved, and the fact that so many of those involved were not part of the disciplinary action.
The emerging coalition of MAGA supporters and Silicon Valley's tech bros and venture capitalists has found a new shared target to set its sights on: the world's largest free encyclopedia.
While Musk's animosity towards Wikipedia may focus outwardly on the hand gesture, Wikipedia's goal of factual neutrality makes it a natural adversary to X — a platform increasingly synonymous with heated culture wars, hate speech and disinformation. Wikipedia and the media at large — which Musk has increasingly criticized — also pose a threat by holding him accountable as he thrusts himself into the center of U.S. politics.
Eight Wikipedia editors accused of disruptive behavior have been barred from making changes to articles on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, following a a ruling issued Thursday by the crowd-sourced encyclopedia's highest oversight body.
She said her Wikipedia editing journey began back in 2018 with learning about what was considered notable on the site and identifying where there were gaps which really needed to be filled.
Bussigny told me ... "However, I was keen to reveal and prove through this immersion that fiercely anti-Zionist organized networks are targeting the online encyclopedia, which is extremely popular in France, especially among pupils and students who may be unknowingly influenced."
The behavior of anti-Israel Wikipedia editors has been in the news lately.
Yet Wikipedia remains one of the few major platforms where political debates can take place in a way that is both intense and calm, even on the most controversial subjects, Vermeirsche noted.
However, both languages benefit from the visibility and preservation opportunities provided by the platform. Qualitative content analysis demonstrated that both Wikipedia editions contain a mix of cultural, historical, and contemporary topics.
Might Wikipedia, the ever-evolving online compendium of human knowledge, become the latest target in the new administration's crackdown on public sources of information?
The bottom line: 84% of Left-leaning outlets have Wikipedia's stamp of approval, while 0% of right-leaning outlets even get a wink from the tech giant.
Wikipedia warns that if "no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate." In other words, the only media reports that are considered trustworthy are those reported by leftist, legacy media.
It's no secret that Wikipedia's volunteer editors are predominantly ideological myopes favorable to leftist causes, ideas, and personalities and antipathetic to conservatives of various stripes.
It seems that both the CCP and Heritage believe that if you can't win an argument in the digital space of Wikipedia, it's fair game to destroy that person's life offline.
The source blacklist has zero to do with accuracy and everything to do with shutting down any journalist who doesn't bend the knee to the left. And stifling any discourse not approved by progressive would-be overlords in biz and government and the NGO sector. In other words, Wikipedia is engaged in an actual disinformation op.
I think that there's this political-industrial complex right now where everything is being politicized, right? And the right wing has an interest in portraying Wikipedia as left-wing and a kind of liberal media. ... But if I had to guess, I think it's going to get worse before it gets better in terms of partisan rhetoric about Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is certainly not immune to bad information, disagreement, or political warfare, but its openness and transparency rules have made it a remarkably reliable platform in a decidedly unreliable age. Evidence that it's an outright propaganda arm of the left, or of any political party, is thin.
The Media Research Center, a conservative organisation, released a report on the free online encyclopedia's list of "reliable sources". The report said that all the US news sites the centre categorised as right-leaning had failed to meet Wikipedia's criteria as a trusted resource for administrators.
Even Wikipedia recognises the gravity of the situation its contributors in Belarus now face, to the extent that they have overridden their own protocols and deleted the entire edit history for Belarus-related articles that could land its users in trouble.
As you scroll through the 2020s, though, you'll notice that the pages keep going: 2026, 2027, 2028 and so on. The reliably dull Wikipedia interface remains unchanged, even as recorded history cedes to speculative history.
In a series of calls and letters to the Wikimedia community over the last two weeks, Wikimedia executives have told editors that they are trying to figure out how to keep their users safe in an increasingly hostile political environment.
Many worry that Wikipedia contributors could be targeted next. According to documents obtained by the independent news organization Forward, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank responsible for Project 2025, wants to "use facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia, who mostly work under pseudonyms." It is not yet clear what the organization would do after identifying the contributors."
In response, Wikimedia is rolling out new security measures. One major change is the temporary accounts program, which will prevent unregistered editors' IP addresses from being visible to the public.
Overall, Wade says, "there's a bunch of old-school scientists who don't think this kind of science communication is credible". Yet, she stresses that Wikipedia editing is easy and rewarding, and a useful way to contribute to research culture.
Ultimately, this article calls for greater transparency and accountability in how big tech entities use open-access datasets like Wikipedia, advocating for collaborative frameworks prioritizing ethical considerations and equitable representation.
The culture wars have come for our public information sources. And Wikipedia is on the chopping block.
In November 2024, the Indian government reportedly formally raised concerns over bias and inaccuracies on the platform, citing complaints about a small group of editors exerting disproportionate influence over content neutrality. India Today reported that the government questioned whether Wikipedia should continue being classified as an intermediary or be held accountable as a publisher.
On February 14, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees and language committee approved the proposal of Sylheti Wikipedia.
That feeling of getting lost in the information rabbit hole is a quintessential Wikipedia experience that most people are familiar with.
He added that he prefers to keep his anonymity because he sometimes writes on contentious topics. He cited a massive defamation lawsuit filed last year by the government of India against the Wikimedia Foundation, and a more recent report about the conservative U.S. Heritage Foundation's plans to "identify and target" volunteer editors on Wikipedia.
But Wikipedia has proved remarkably resilient. Wales has stressed that the site is not for sale. And for two decades, a long time in tech years, it has stayed true to its crowdsourced, democratic ethos and to its commitment to facts. In 2025 America, that counts as a beacon of hope.
Wikipedia depends on the availability of existing published sources to verify the facts in its articles. But, because women have been left out of historical narratives and traditional sources of knowledge, many of these knowledge gaps are present on Wikipedia.
As these attacks continue, it's more important than ever for funders to continue supporting and safeguarding organizations that foster learning. Only then can we ensure that in the future, Wikipedia, and free knowledge on the web in general, don't share the fate of the great Library of Alexandria.
Ongoing war and other conflicts in the Middle East have spilled onto the pages of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, where volunteer editors who maintain the website are sparring over how to frame recent events. At least 14 editors have been barred from working on pages related to the topic, Jewish organizations are claiming bias, and the conflict has reached the top levels of Wikipedia as the site's two founders, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, are at odds over whether to unmask the anonymous editors involved in the turmoil.
With the new Trump administration's goal to tackle waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government, Sanger sees a prime opportunity for DOGE to take another look at Wikipedia. He believes there's evidence to raise questions about potential government influence on the website and warned there could be foreign influence from China or Russia on the website as well.
Every second, more than 8000 people read Wikipedia. Every minute, there are about 350 edits to the site. It's the most-read reference ever. This, of course, is according to Wikipedia - a sentence that would have been unlikely to appear in an article even a few years ago. But in a world where Meta has removed fact-checkers and AI gives laughably inaccurate answers, Wikipedia has emerged as a surprisingly reliable and increasingly respected source of information.
As we mark International Women's Day, it's high time we examined the barriers that keep Wikipedia from achieving true equity, and the efforts being made to close this digital divide.
The initiative is part of a longer-term collaboration between Times of Malta and Wikimedia Community Malta which sees academic Toni Sant serve as Times of Malta's Wikimedian-in-Residence. As part of that collaboration, Times of Malta will be making a number of photos from its historic photo library available on Wikipedia for public use under a Creative Commons Licence.
This portrait problem stems from Wikipedia's mission to provide free reliable information. All media on the site must be openly licensed, so that anyone can use it free of charge. That, in turn, means that most photos of notable people on the site are of notably poor quality.
Auckland Museum has been working alongside Wikipedia for a while, but especially closely since 2020. Their team keeps track of how often articles about their collections are looked at online: 60 million views a year on Wikipedia, compared with 600,000 on the museum's own website.
But if the common feeling in the room was that Wikipedia wasn't under existential threat, the editors still felt vulnerable.
Wikipedia's goal: 5,000 new articles. But beyond the numbers, the project is about preserving heritage and making knowledge accessible to all.
The issue arose after ANI sued Wikipedia for defamation alleging that the platform allowed defamatory edits by certain users referring to the news agency as a "propaganda tool" for the present Central government.
Subsequently, on November 11, 2024, the Delhi High Court closed Wikimedia's appeal against the single judge's order directing disclosure of the individuals' subscriber details. This came after both parties entered into a consent order resolving the matter.
In October, the Delhi High Court described Wikipedia's model as "dangerous", complaining that "anyone can edit a page". It also ordered the take down of a Wikipedia page titled "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation" which contains details on the ongoing case.
ADL has found clear evidence that a group of at least 30 editors circumvent Wikipedia's policies in concert to introduce antisemitic narratives, anti-Israel bias, and misleading information.
On pages dedicated to major historical events, like several Israel-Arab wars or peace negotiations, editors would make "extensive edits" in "tone, content and perspective" to advance an anti-Israel narrative, the report found.
The ADL report did not call for abandoning Wikipedia but warned users to be skeptical of politically sensitive entries.
The ADL said editors appeared to coordinate changing relevant pages, downplaying Palestinian antisemitism, violence, and calls to destroy Israel, and adding more criticism of Israel.
Speaking to Jewish News, a spokesperson at the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates Wikipedia said: ... "Though our preliminary review of this report finds troubling and flawed conclusions that are not supported by the Anti-Defamation League's data, we are currently undertaking a more thorough and detailed analysis. It is unfortunate that we were not asked to provide context that might have helped allay some of the concerns raised."
In its latest act of partisan truth-twisting, Wikipedia took a blowtorch to the reputations of President Donald Trump's nominees for his Cabinet. The partisan ploy failed to derail them, but it exposed the sinister agenda that informs everything the online encyclopedia touches.
Since that decision, "the ADL has continued to misrepresent Wikipedia's well-established guidelines, policies, and enforcement mechanisms that effectively address the issues outlined in the report and its recommendations," the Wikimedia Foundation said in its statement.
For five hours, two dozen or so volunteers congregate over laptops, cups of coffee and doughnuts iced with the Wikipedia logo. They're writing new entries for places lost in the fires, adding citations, updating information and uploading photos.
Have you ever wondered why there's a sea of differences between the celebrity portraits seen on IMDb as compared to those on Wikipedia? It turns out many of us have been scratching our heads over the same.
The workshop covered various topics, including basic training on page editing, creating articles on Wikipedia, incorporating references, and understanding Wikipedia's layout and formatting. Thirty-seven students and researchers participated in the event.
For example, discussions about Hindu religious practices frequently center around Western feminist or secular critiques rather than incorporating viewpoints from Hindu practitioners themselves. This creates a situation where content about Hinduism may emphasize aspects like caste systems or gender inequalities while minimizing its philosophical depth or cultural significance to Indian society.
In response to The Forward article, Wikipedia editors launched a discussion known as Request for Comment (RfC) on Jan. 8 how editors should treat the think tank's reliability going forward.
Wikipedia is a vital link within the network of online information. Women with articles in Wikipedia are easier to find. We'll boost the discoverability of these women by creating and editing articles in Wikipedia. Help us share the stories of women musicians, fiber artists, journalists, doctors and more.
As Wikipedia becomes more central to the infrastructure A.I., the organization is grappling with rising bot traffic, the need for attribution and how to sustain its ecosystem in the face of powerful new users.
Some enthusiasts launched WikiPortraits, a project to recruit a group of volunteer photographers around the world and get them accreditation to attend film festivals, conferences and other events.
The tension traces back to last year when Wikipedia editors deemed the ADL "generally unreliable" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due to its dual advocacy and research roles, though still "generally reliable" elsewhere.
Over on Bluesky, the Depths of Wikipedia account curates some absolute treasures from the open-collaboration encyclopaedia.
In its suit against Wikimedia Foundation and its officials, ANI has said that the former has allegedly published palpably false and defamatory content with malicious intent of tarnishing the news agency's reputation and to discredit its goodwill.
In October, the Delhi High Court had described Wikipedia's model as "dangerous", complaining that "anyone can edit a page". It also ordered the take down of a Wikipedia page titled "Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation" which contains details on the ongoing case. Wikipedia took the page down but also moved the Supreme Court.
In response, Wikipedia's site managers have imposed "case-by-case" rate limiting for the offending AI crawlers, or even banned them. But to address the problem over the long-term, the Wikimedia Foundation is developing a "Responsible Use of Infrastructure" plan, which notes the network strain from AI bot scrapers is "unsustainable."
Web-scraping bots have become an unsupportable burden for the Wikimedia community due to their insatiable appetite for online content to train AI models. Representatives from the Wikimedia Foundation, which oversees Wikipedia and similar community-based projects, say that since January 2024, the bandwidth spent serving requests for multimedia files has increased by 50 percent.
"Defendant No.1 [Wikimedia Foundation Inc] professes itself to be an encyclopaedia and people at large have a tendency to accept the statements made on the web pages of Defendant No.1 as gospel truth. The responsibility, therefore, of Defendant No.1 is higher," [the court] stated.
Last year the agency, ANI, sued Wikimedia for defamation in the Delhi High Court, citing a Wikipedia description that it faced criticism for being a government "propaganda tool" and sought removal of such statements.
Recently, the 30-ish folks behind the Wikimedians of Minnesota User Group have resurrected their meetups. It's an effort to better curate entries related to the state and geek-out on the minutia of online information chronicling, but it's also a great excuse to snack on stuffed sausage dates while sipping beers at Lake Monster Brewing Co., as they'll do this coming Sunday.
The non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, says since January 2024 it has seen a 50 per cent increase in network traffic requesting image and video downloads from its catalogue.
The Wikimedia Foundation is the second major tech platform, following X, to become embroiled in Indian court battles over orders to take down content in recent years.
The single judge had observed that Wikipedia cannot wash its hands of the contents published on it by merely claiming that it is an intermediary and cannot be held responsible for the statements published on the platform. Perusing ANI's Wikipedia page, the Court had said that the statements on it were all sourced from articles which were nothing but editorials and opinionated pages.
Unlike newspapers or scientific journals, the encyclopedia does not purport to publish new information; volunteers are instead expected to repeat with attribution or reproduce with references, information originally published elsewhere, with a preference for reputable sources. In this light, the court order is problematic.
ANI argued that, as a public platform, Wikipedia should not possess the same freedoms as a private company. It also criticised the platform for restricting the page, which prevents the news agency from making edits while allowing Wikipedia editors to do so.
On Tuesday, the court observed that Wikipedia is regarded as an encyclopedia and should maintain neutrality and not take sides like a blog.
Wikipedia, which allows for user-generated modifications supported by credible sources, defended itself by citing its community moderation model and neutrality policy.
The cyber cell then issued a stern warning to Wikipedia, warning that failure to comply could result in its services being blocked in India under Section 69A of the IT Act.
But Wikipedia has, increasingly, found itself at odds with the world. The rise of autocracy and totalitarianism last year means a growing number of governments are looking to control what Wikipedia says about them, while a global turn against traditional institutions has weakened trust in the website – which many see as a mouthpiece for legacy media.
Editors have starkly different views of what Wikipedia is and how it best serves readers.
Dr Johansson designed a program, dubbed "lsjbot", which generated millions of articles in several languages, but particularly Cebuano. It also laid bare a debate which Wikipedia has been grappling with since its inception, and which artificial intelligence (AI) is making ever more pressing.
Wikipedia is attempting to dissuade artificial intelligence developers from scraping the platform by releasing a dataset that's specifically optimized for training AI models.
The High Court issued summons to Wikipedia on July 9, 2024 and ordered it to disclose information about three people who made the edits on ANI's Wikipedia page. The order was resisted by Wikipedia, which itself chose to serve notices on these users instead of disclosing their identity in public.
No longer a straightforward source of facts, Wikipedia today is pure left-wing propaganda — and its intense campaign against Vice President JD Vance is just the latest example of its bias.
According to Ars Technica, bots that scrape Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons pages have consumed 50 percent of its bandwidth, putting a massive strain on the nonprofit's entire operation.
In asking for the takedown of articles by interpreting critical information as defamation and by even threatening penal action against Wikipedia, judicial actions could unwittingly lead to the stifling of open discussion of entities on the encyclopaedia, thereby acting against the interest of the free flow of information.
The letter, which was obtained by The Free Press, accused the largest online encyclopedia of "allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public."
While Wikipedia has weathered occasional controversies throughout its history over the content of its articles, its emergence as a bogeyman of U.S. conservatives is relatively recent. In 2018, an Atlantic column dubbed it "the last bastion of shared reality" in an ever more polarized country.
Martin went on to complain that the Wikimedia board is "composed primarily of foreign nationals" who are "subverting the interests of American taxpayers."
Martin's letter reflects a broader trend of the right targeting Wikipedia.
Globally, Wikipedia has come under scrutiny from various governments. In Saudi Arabia, the government imprisoned two Wikipedia editors on charges of "swaying public opinion." In Turkey, Wikipedia was blocked entirely for nearly three years over content critical of the government until the country's highest court ruled the ban unconstitutional.
Mr. Martin said Wikipedia's operations are directed by a board composed primarily of foreign nationals "subverting the interests of American taxpayers." He said that its mission as a neutral educational resource is benefiting "foreign powers," and its tax-exempt status could be at risk for violating its "legal obligations and fiduciary duties."
The letter was cordial, if ridiculous. But on social media, Martin was (even) less professional. "Hey @Wikipedia: you can run but you can't hide!" he tweeted, linking to a post on his own letter.
The cohort of Wikipedia editors has softened the image of Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas through removing any mention of their 1988 charter, which calls for the complete massacre of Jews and elimination of Israel. The editors also edited an article on Zionism, describing the movement for Jewish self-determination as "an ethnocultural nationalist movement" which was "pursued through the colonization of Palestine."
One might ask, "Who cares if Wikipedia is biased?" Lots of media are biased in one direction or another. And the notion that any nonprofit organization's political leaning requires its status be investigated is ludicrous, considering that three of the organizations hyping Wikipedia's alleged wrongdoing—the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute and the ADL—have the same tax-exempt status.
The letter follows recent ADL research that found widespread antisemitic and anti-Israel bias on its pages, across multiple languages, especially on content related to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as well as an apparent coordinated promotion of pro-Hamas propaganda.
The letter highlighted how the report documented instances in which these editors scrubbed the Wikipedia pages of certain public figures' support for terrorism and antisemitism and that the Hamas Wikipedia page whitewashes Hamas' terror activities.
But the rightwing obsession with going after public media and Wikipedia isn't solely about wanting to consolidate control over information. Like so many Trumpian culture-war "policies," it's driven by a deep well of resentment and revenge, a desire to get even with the snooty elites who must be punished for liking things that Real Americans don't.
Aharoni Lir revealed that interviews with 16 Jewish English Wikipedia editors had raised major concerns about the "difficulty, and at times impossibility, of correcting biased content directed against Israel," a problem she said had "notably intensified since October 7."
In their announcement, the committee said it had reviewed a 244-page dossier that The Journal published in the "Gaming the Wiki System" cover story chronicling the purported activities of the Wikipedia channel in the Tech for Palestine Discord server.
"In violation of Wikipedia's rules, Buzbee directed his employees to edit Wikipedia pages to enhance Buzbee's image and damage Mr. Carter's and Roc Nation's reputations," Jay-Z's attorneys write in the amended complaint.
I will remain in my role until a new CEO is in place," Iskander said in the note. "The hope is to welcome a successor by January 2026, a milestone that coincides with Wikipedia's 25th anniversary.
The Cologne-based firm has cooked up a collaboration with the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates Wikipedia and has found itself in the crosshairs of U.S. President Donald Trump and Tesla founder Elon Musk in recent months.
The charity that hosts Wikipedia is challenging the UK's online safety legislation in the high court, saying some of its regulations would expose the site to "manipulation and vandalism".
Lead counsel Phil Bradley-Schmieg said it was "unfortunate that we must now defend the privacy and safety of Wikipedia's volunteer editors from flawed legislation". The government told the BBC it was committed to implementing the act but could not comment on ongoing legal proceedings.
Well, true crime experts, now it's your turn to share. What's the scariest Wikipedia page about a missing person (or persons) you've ever read?
We have no hesitation to hold that the direction issued by the High Court could not have been issued, the top court said.
The High Court today issued notice to Wikimedia Foundation (owner of Wikipedia) on a fresh application moved by ANI for an interim injunction against alleged defamatory content on Wikipedia's page about ANI. Justice Jyoti Singh heard the case today and issued notice to Wikipedia before listing the matter for further hearing on July 7.
The Supreme Court said the takedown order was the result of the high court reacting "disproportionately." "Courts, as a public and open institution, must always remain open to public observations, debates and criticisms," the 37-page Supreme Court order said.
But he stops short of calling it a shared reality. Wikipedia is not a place where you're "just seeing your preferential version of things served up to you as a delicious piece of confirmation bias," he says. "[But] there will be people who just reject Wikipedia out of hand when it doesn't conform with their concept of reality."
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)Iskander also sees lessons in Wikipedia's approach for AI companies as they seek to mitigate bias, reduce errors and ensure a healthy information ecosystem.
The original paper was published in 2022 and was criticised in a subsequent study published in May 2023, co-authored by High Court judge Mr Justice Richard Humphreys, which said citations in judgments are driven mainly by legal submissions and maintained there was no "Wikipedia effect".
Hearing Wikimedia's Special Leave Petition (SLP), the bench firmly rejected the HC's interpretation and its broad directive.
In conclusion, the Wikipedia v ANI decision is not merely a win for one online platform, it draws a line in the sand. The Supreme Court has reminded lower courts and litigants alike that judicial power must be exercised with restraint, especially in matters concerning speech.
Wikipedia has edited out the 'disparaging' parts of the pages on Indian news channels following a news report that called out the website's alleged bias. Wikipedia, in its profiles of leading news channels in India, allegedly labelled them as close to the BJP and stated that the channels reported in favour of the ruling party.
[Wikipedia] is run completely on the goodwill and hyperfixation disorders of complete randos out there. I really have no idea how this place runs, but it's been too long for me to ask. People have always trusted me because of how I look and I can't ruin that by asking questions. Regardless, we have other stuff we need money for that you don't know about. Just trust me, okay?
The two-year residency pilot program is a partnership between CUNY and Wikimedia New York City, and funded by Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist and namesake of CUNY's journalism school.
The attacks by the ADL and Congress on Wikipedia purport to protect Jews, but in fact have nothing to do with antisemitism, and everything to do with controlling the narrative about Israel. But Wikipedia's processes around that narrative are admirable in their strenuous research.
The authors argue that Wikipedia's structure increasingly mirrors that of a social media platform rather than a neutral and reliable information source.
True story: Stoever Googled "How to use Wikipedia in your classroom," which led her to Wiki Education. She applied, and within weeks, the organization built a dashboard for her class, assigned students a Wikipedia expert as a guide, and gave the professor her own mentor, along with online talks and events throughout the semester.
At another point, Mr. Martin said he viewed himself as being engaged in a "war over information." He cited a letter he had written to Wikipedia accusing it of bias and improperly shielding itself from scrutiny through its tax-exempt status.
If anything, the ADL report downplays our findings, which point to the pervasive presence of antisemitism on the Wikipedia pages we analyzed.
These existential questions resonated with viewers, with his TikTok video reaching over 331.9K views and 31.8K likes. After all, most people take the internet's most trusted encyclopedia for granted.
In other words, a government-sanctioned organization is being platformed by the Wikipedia website to redact content with strong political undertones – promising to reimburse the winners with what appears to be governmental allocated funds.
While Wikipedia has never been known to be an infallible source free of bias or inaccuracies, generative AI has proven to be far more unreliable, thanks to widespread hallucinations and biases present in its training data.
We have over 2,000 African languages, yet our voices are missing on the Internet. While Swahili is making remarkable strides, other languages must rise too. Wikipedia is a powerful tool for digital inclusion, and we are here to change the narrative.
Elon Musk tweeted in 2023 that it had a "non-trivial left-wing tilt" and joked it should rename itself "Wokipedia". Conservative commentators have echoed similar criticisms, saying it takes its information disproportionately from "left-wing" media, and one study published last year suggested its editors wrote more positively of Democratic figures than Republican ones.
Although Wikipedia credits its volunteer editing for making it a vast encyclopedia with tens of millions of pages, it lacks the policies and tools to achieve neutrality on hotly contested topics like the Israel-Palestine conflict, according to a third editor who requested anonymity.
The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit organization which hosts and develops Wikipedia, has paused an experiment that showed users AI-generated summaries at the top of articles after an overwhelmingly negative reaction from the Wikipedia editors community.
Even Wikipedia, the vast repository of knowledge famously maintained by an army of volunteer human editors, is looking to add robots to the mix. The site began testing AI summaries in some articles over the past week, but the project has been frozen after editors voiced their opinions. And that opinion is: "yuck."
Tesla launched its robotaxi service on Monday in Austin, with only a few cars involved but a great deal of fanfare. The discrepancy is best explained by one Wikipedia page: 'List of predictions for autonomous Tesla vehicles by Elon Musk.'