In a recent interview, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales was confronted about the site claiming Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Wales rejected this as biased and requested changes at the “Gaza genocide” article’s discussion page. Editors attacked Wales with some accusing him of ties to Israel or suggesting sanctions, such as removing his “founder” flag. Some sought action regarding a neutrality working group set up by the site’s owners, a working group he chairs.
News media widely spread false claims Wales locked the page with this falsehood even repeated on Wikipedia itself. Wales was supported in his criticism of the page by fellow co-founder Larry Sanger, who recently proposed reforms for the site. The confrontation comes amid multiple U.S. government inquiries into Wikipedia bias, particularly regarding Israel, and after community outcry over board elections where candidates were rejected with some claiming government pressure over Israel.
Wikipedia’s “Gaza genocide” article was changed towards the end of September to claim as fact that Israel committed genocide after administrator Christopher Beland found this favored by a 2:1 margin, though many supporters were openly left-wing or pro-Palestinian. The article introduction subsequently stated the “Gaza genocide is the ongoing systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza by Israel by means of blockade, invasion, and bombing of the strip with the manifest intent of senior Israeli leaders in the context of the war that is taking place there.” A separate decision led to the “genocide” article being prominently displayed on Wikipedia’s front page “In the news” section indefinitely.
Previously, the “Gaza genocide” article was titled “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” until a decision last year by Joe Roe, a former member of the Arbitration Committee likened to a Supreme Court, despite most supporting a title qualifying genocide as alleged. Roe previously shared a post on social media condemning Israel’s military response weeks after the October 7 attacks, which killed hundreds of Israeli civilians with hundreds abducted. Roe has since shared numerous anti-Israeli posts after the decision, even promoting an academic boycott of Israel. Beland, who ruled in favor of stating genocide as fact, has also made social media posts attacking Israel.
Interview and Intervention
Over the past few weeks, Wales has been promoting his book The Seven Rules of Trust, which argues Wikipedia is a guide for building trustworthy resources. While being interviewed about the book on Christiane Amanpour’s show Amanpour and Company, which airs on PBS and CNN, journalist Walter Isaacson questioned Wales about the “Gaza genocide” page claiming as fact that Israel committed genocide. Stating he just read the page himself Wales criticized it as “one of the worst Wikipedia entries I’ve seen in a very long time.” He stated he was shocked and said the page needed to change as it was not meeting Wikipedia’s neutrality standards.
Before the interview aired, Wales went over to the discussion page on November 2 to call for a change to the article. Noting the interview, Wales mentioned his involvement in the working group looking into the neutrality policy and its application on Wikipedia, though stating he spoke in his personal capacity. He stated the introduction of the “Gaza genocide” article claiming as fact Israel committed genocide violated the neutrality policy and the claims should instead be attributed as allegations, suggesting wording to that effect. Wales further pointed to a passage on the neutrality policy page, which stated it was non-negotiable and application not subject to a consensus decision.
Seeking wider participation, Wales left notices at his highly-watched personal discussion page and several other discussion pages. Early response was hostile towards Wales. Former Christian Science Monitor journalist and Wikipedia critic Dan Murphy trolled Wales in an early response by mimicking his suggested wording, but substituting claims Israel had not committed genocide with nonsensical claims the Earth is flat. Numerous other editors repeatedly likened questioning claims Israel committed genocide to claiming the Earth is flat or claims the Apollo moon landings were faked. Some further likened it to Holocaust denial. Wales objected that such comparisons were indefensible and fallacious. He noted significant disagreement among major governments as one key difference.
Editor “Very Polite Person” suggested Wales would need to exhaustively discuss the matter to overturn the previous decision, mockingly adding “I hope you have the next few weeks of vacation time to spend on it. Good luck.” One editor “Hemiauchenia” stated the discussion was closed by “a respected admin” and that while he was “allowed to disagree with the consensus of the Wikipedia community” it was “patronising to scorn the community about being wrong.” Multiple other editors also objected to Wales suddenly pushing for changing the wording, citing the previous community decision. One accused Wales of being “dictatorial” on his personal discussion page.
A recurring objection from numerous editors was Wales invoking his status as a founder of Wikipedia and his role at the neutrality working group, suggesting he was effectively invoking implied authority to push for a change. One editor compared it to the British monarch demanding a change in policy after the parliament had already reached a decision. Several editors raised the possibility that Wales was responding to political pressure given multiple U.S. government inquiries into Wikipedia’s bias on Israel and in turn using his position to pressure editors. Wales rebuffed these claims, stating that his objection to the page was not due to external pressure.
This possibility was cited sympathetically to support more civility towards Wales. Another editor specifically argued against civility, accusing Wales of “an abuse of power.” Some editors further alleged Wales had a conflict of interest due to receiving a $1 million prize in 2015 at Tel Aviv University, citing its government funding. Numerous editors pushed this claim or otherwise suggested Wales acted under Israeli pressure. Editor “HAL333” called it a “disturbing precedent” and suggested U.S. government investigations motivated his push for changes regarding the “Gaza genocide” claims, adding Wales was vindicating Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who has criticized Wikipedia’s bias and recently launched a competitor Grokipedia.
Concern about the working group being invoked prompted editor “AndytheGrump” to push Wales to clarify its role, particularly if it will force a change. Wales responded that they were looking “into issues relating to neutrality across all languages of Wikipedia, including . . . how policy is framed and dealt with in different languages” and suggested the Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia could help with “strengthening policy” in the area. Andy objected this would amount to asserting editorial control. Paul Lee, who edits as “Valjean” on Wikipedia, suggested conflict between the Foundation and community on the matter would be “handing fringe and far-right voices a huge win.”
Sanctions Efforts Against Wales
Numerous editors suggested sanctioning Wales. One argued anyone “denying” genocide in Gaza should be banned, though stated this might not include Wales. Editor “Huldra” posted an alert regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict’s “contentious topic” designation on the personal discussion page for Wales. Contentious topics refer to subject areas where admins have broad discretion to impose sanctions with the Arbitration Committee assigning such designations. Huldra stated her alert was because pursuing sanctions required prior notification. Wales received another alert claiming he violated a word-limit restriction. Several admins previously warned him of “canvassing” over his personal discussion page message, referring to policy on rigging discussions.
Such claims were ultimately followed by a request for sanctions against Wales listing many claimed offenses on a noticeboard for administrators. The request alleged Wales was engaging in self-promotion of his recently-released book, stated that he was stubbornly refusing to drop the issue despite a discussion rejecting any re-examination of the matter, and reiterated claims of Wales having a conflict of interest, though citing his connections to the World Economic Forum instead and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s membership. A ban from edits relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict area was proposed and the removal of a “founder” user right established specifically for Wales, which possesses no formal privileges.
While the claim about a conflict of interest was struck following one editor’s criticism of it, many editors supported action against Wales in the discussion, though most stopped short of supporting an outright ban from the topic. Some objected that removing his “founder” right would have no actual effect, though some supported its removal as symbolic disapproval. Others suggested lighter measures, such as an official warning or a simple “trout” referring to a humorous gesture of disapproval on the site where one is “whacked with a wet trout” virtually. Editors also showed disapproval of the entire discussion and suggested “trouting” the community.
His role on the neutrality working group set up by the Foundation was also a subject of discussion with editor “Aquillion” suggesting his removal as chair of the working group and stating the community signaled it opposes any intervention by the Foundation in Wikipedia’s application of neutrality policies. In a separate discussion, Aquillion suggested the incident might warrant disbanding the working group altogether. Others expressed concern at the working group’s page on the Wikipedia-affiliated Meta site. Aquillion has been prolific in pushing a left-wing agenda on the site on various topics. In one incident this year, Aquillion participated in framing the term “adult human female” as hate speech.
Arbitration Committee member “CaptainEek” closed the discussion about sanctioning Wales with a reprimand to the editor who initiated it for comments about Wales, arguing the discussion itself sufficiently alerted Wales to his perceived error. One editor cited this outcome and “trouted” Wales. However, CaptainEek soon faced heavy criticism for closing the discussion with one editor re-opening it only to be undone. CaptainEek subsequently re-initiated discussion, focusing on whether to give an official warning. Many editors supported it, particularly by invoking the “canvassing” claims, but others opposed action. Committee member “ScottishFinnishRadish” closed this discussion with “no consensus” and faced criticism and suggestions the Committee was closing ranks behind Wales.
False Reporting
Days before Wales commented on the article’s discussion page, ScottishFinnishRadish locked the page so only administrators could make edits. This was due to editors repeatedly restoring content seeking to discredit an Israeli think tank’s study arguing genocide claims used faulty data and methodology and characterizing the study as “genocide denial” by citing left-wing outlets. Initially, the lock was indicated by a small icon in a top corner of the page, but Arbitration Committee member Harry Mitchell changed it to a large banner after Wales made his call for changes. The banner’s appearance, though linking logs showing who locked the page, prompted misunderstandings that Wales imposed the lock.
Reports claiming as much soon appeared in the New York Post, Gizmodo, Al-Jazeera, and the Times of Israel among other outlets. While articles were subsequently corrected to remove the false claim of Wales being responsible, such claims went viral on social media among anti-Israeli accounts, including insinuations that Wales had been compromised by unnamed parties into ostensibly making the move:
Editors on Wikipedia quickly noticed the false reporting and initiated several discussions about it in several places. Multiple editors noted outside media reporting often gets details about Wikipedia wrong, acknowledging the site can be inscrutable despite its apparent openness. Others argued it should raise questions about the use of news outlets as sources over academic ones, though editors noted academic sources also often misunderstand Wikipedia despite more rigorous procedures. Corrections by Gizmodo and Al-Jazeera were noted favorably, but others at the New York Post and Times of Israel were deemed insufficient.
Prior to the correction, Gizmodo’s piece was even cited to include the false information on Wikipedia itself. An editor removing the material stated “I’m reverting you because the source is wrong” and added corrected material. Editor “Leaky solar” soon re-added the false material and it was removed again. Leaky solar had previously been involved in smearing the memorial service of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk following his assassination. False reporting about Wikipedia itself from sources deemed “reliable” was notably added to the site in 2015 during a case regarding Wikipedia disputes over the GamerGate anti-corruption movement in gaming, which left-wing editors falsely characterize as a harassment campaign.
Editors noted Wales himself cannot even perform administrative actions such as locking pages. Two years ago, Wales surrendered his admin privileges on Wikipedia after falsely accusing a former Arbitration Committee member of being involved in undisclosed paid editing, a prohibited yet common practice with disclosed editing openly permitted despite controversy to where even admins possessing confidential data access engage in it. Wales was further stripped of his ability to review appeals of Committee actions at the time. One editor claimed a comment then about a “self-deceived” Wales causing problems believing he was right predicted his intervention at the “Gaza genocide” article.
Support from Sanger and Others
Despite significant criticism, Wales also received significant support, including from fellow co-founder Sanger. In his statement on the “Gaza genocide” article’s discussion page, Sanger agreed with the criticism Wales raised that the article should not be taking sides on the matter. Citing one of his “nine theses” advocating reform, Sanger rebutted objections to Wales claiming the article represented a consensus by stating that siding against the views of many people was not genuine consensus. He stated the fact both he and Wales agreed the article was biased should prompt doubts among its defenders and further argued the article discredited policy against giving “undue weight” to minority views.
Sanger elaborated further at the personal discussion page for Wales, noting the “Gaza genocide” page as an example of the “globalist, academic, secular, and progressive” or GASP bias he observed in his criticism of the site. Noting the ongoing purge of conservative media on Wikipedia, Sanger remarked how the Anti-Defamation League was specifically deemed unreliable on the topic of Israel, yet the pro-Palestinian outlet Al-Jazeera was still treated as reliable. He argued the situation also highlighted the need for his proposed democratic editorial assembly to review and properly define site policy. When Wales was facing sanctions and remarked on the absurdity of it, Sanger also sided with him.
Many editors attacked Sanger for supporting Wales, having already attacked him over his reform proposal and prior criticism. On the “Gaza genocide” article discussion page, Murphy mockingly mimicked Sanger’s comments as he did with Wales, only substituting criticism of genocide claims with “Qanon” conspiracy theories about elite pedophilia instead of “flat Earth” claims. Such mockery seemingly concerned social media posts cited by Hemiauchenia in that discussion, where Sanger criticized media not responding to Qanon theories with evidence and argued former President Bill Clinton might be a pedophile following allegations he visited the late convicted child sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s private island, a claim Clinton denies. Hemiauchenia suggested the posts meant Sanger endorsed the theories.
In addition to Sanger, there were also a large number of editors who thanked Wales for raising the issue and agreed with him about the bias of the article and its characterization of “genocide” as fact. Editor “Springee” stated the page was another example of Wikipedia failing to follow the neutrality policy by taking sides. Citing this as a long-term issue, Springee added that “this is exactly the sort of article where the typical Wikipedia system breaks down because we often end up going with weight of numbers when making a call such as this” and that such an approach only works on less contentious articles.
One editor mentioned having given up on Wikipedia after the “Gaza genocide” decision, but expressing hope Wales could get the user to again believe in the site. An Israeli editor who served in the Israeli Defense Forces similarly mentioned halting contributions and stated “without some kind of drastic change, I don’t think Wikipedia will be the same.” Editor “Coining” wrote a detailed elaboration on why Wales was right to highlight a difference between the “consensus” of editors on the site and the actual lack of consensus outside Wikipedia, receiving multiple messages of support for the comment.
Andreas Kolbe argued the article’s introduction had grown too one-sided in recent months and did not reflect actual scholarly debate about genocide claims. One editor suggested that Wales raising his criticism, knowing it would likely attract significant sensationalized media coverage hurting Wikipedia’s reputation, is proof he believed the article’s bias warranted the risk and should thus be taken seriously. That editor also initiated discussion echoing Kolbe’s concerns about the page not giving sufficient weight to criticism of genocide claims. Brendan McKay, a pro-Palestinian admin who edits as “Zero0000” on Wikipedia, also agreed with Wales on reporting the controversy instead of claiming genocide as fact.
Editor “SuperPianoMan9167” changed the page to attribute the genocide claims, but was reverted citing the prior community discussion. Lengthy discussions regarding whether the claims should be attributed to a claimed scholarly consensus instead of taken as fact were initiated by SuperPianoMan, but editors stood by the previous community discussion and insisted attribution would be giving “undue weight” to claims Israel had not committed genocide. Former admin “Fram” ultimately closed discussion of the concerns Wales raised, stating editors firmly rejected revisiting the issue. Efforts to add a tag to the article noting neutrality concerns were repeatedly undone by editors with editors in subsequent discussions claiming the issue is settled.
Wales Criticizes Restrictions
Commenting on the personal discussion page for Wales, one editor supporting him noted being unable to participate on the “Gaza genocide” article’s discussion page due to an “extended confirmed restriction” prohibiting comments by accounts without, at least, 500 edits and 30 days of editing. Wales agreed that the restriction was too limiting and argued this could result in a “downward spiral” where the article becomes more biased and fewer editors are able to correct the problem due to discussion of problems on the page itself being restricted to a select group of editors. He raised similar complaints on the “Gaza genocide” article’s discussion page.
The extended confirmed restriction on the page stems from a sanction imposed during the GamerGate dispute to suppress supporters of the anti-corruption movement in gaming, often branded “single-purpose accounts” despite many being established editors, and enable its opponents, which also included single-purpose accounts who bypassed the restriction. Later, this sanction was imposed by the Arbitration Committee on the entire Arab-Israeli topic area at the urging of pro-Palestinian editors complaining of pro-Israeli editing and developed into an “extended confirmed protection” that soon expanded to other topics. Exemptions were created for comments on article discussion pages, but these were restricted to edit requests following the October 7 attacks.
Arbitration Committee Members Respond
Molly White, a former Committee member who edits as “GorillaWarfare” on Wikipedia, announced a group call with Wales occurred on November 6 to discuss the dispute over the “Gaza genocide” article. The call included current and former Committee members allowing Wales “to ask questions and seek advice” regarding “contentious topic areas and challenging disputes.” No participants in the call were identified other than White, a self-proclaimed socialist-leaning leftist who routinely advances left-wing agendas on Wikipedia and has openly accused Israel of “genocide” on social media. In discussion of the call, editors were pleased by the news with Wales encouraged to take the Committee’s advice.
Editors Follow Up and Double Down
While many editors criticized Wales and defended the “Gaza genocide” page treating genocide claims as fact, there was also a push endorsed by Wales to properly devise site standards on genocide claims. Discussions focused on either a specific guideline or policy on such claims or to have a guideline more broadly addressing how to handle the characterization of violent events with some discussing just expanding upon existing policies and guidelines. Editor Very Polite Person created a page to workshop a potential policy or guideline proposal focusing on questions about how to balance claims from governments and other organizations along with assessing Wikipedia practice and existing standards.
Even with co-founders Wales and Sanger criticizing the “Gaza genocide” article, editors continued pushing the claims. The think tank study disputing genocide claims, which precipitated the page lock, was ultimately removed from the page a few days after Wales commented when the lock expired. SuperPianoMan sought to note in the introduction the various countries opposing genocide claims with editors fighting over it and framing those countries as Israel’s supporters. Discussions regarding how prominently to mention rejection of genocide claims were also initiated. A section was even added on “genocide denial” linking to an article created last month. Surveys showing Israelis supported military actions in Gaza were moved to the “denial” section.
Disputes have also arisen over whether to claim as fact Israel was committing genocide in the introduction of Israel’s own article. Editors removing such changes noted the material in the article was itself the basis of prior community decisions. This was followed by a new discussion being opened on also claiming genocide as fact in the Israel article. One editor created a “Gaza genocide” navigation box listing “genocidal acts” and linking an “incitement to genocide” page created shortly after the September decision to claim as fact that Israel was committing genocide. The navigation box has been added to over 150 articles, including one on a pro-Israeli march.
Past Intervention and Current Pressures
Intervening in article disputes is uncommon for Wales, whose only formal position with Wikipedia entails serving on the Wikimedia Foundation’s Board of Trustees. Wales most recently commented on the discussion page for Kirk’s Wikipedia article a day after his assassination in September to support mentioning Kirk’s purported last words. At the same time Wales commented, the article prominently claimed as fact in the introduction that TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist “sought to fire or silence professors for sharing opinions” they opposed despite the article’s cited sources about the Watchlist not even making the claim. Former Committee member White was monitoring the page and editing its introduction, but did not remove the material.
Editor “Monk of Monk Hall” aggravated matters further by inserting more unsupported claims this was done through “targeted harassment campaigns” within an hour of Wales commenting on the discussion page for Kirk’s article (Monk of Monk Hall was among those fiercely criticizing Wales and Sanger regarding the “Gaza genocide” dispute). Despite another editor complaining hours later, this would not receive a response for nearly a day when another former Committee member Steve Pereira, who edits as “SilkTork” on Wikipedia, only attributed the statement as an allegation. One more day passed before it was removed, Kirk’s page being viewed tens of millions of times during this period.
Criticism of Wikipedia’s left-wing and anti-Israeli bias has become increasingly intense. The neutrality working group Wales chairs was partly cited as concerned with such bias, though the Foundation did not address general political bias when announcing the group. Anti-Israeli bias has a been a particular focus of government inquiries by then-Acting U.S. Attorney for D.C. Ed Martin, who was subject to retaliation after requesting information from Wikipedia’s owners, and members of Congress in both the House and Senate. In addition to anti-Israeli bias, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) was concerned about Wikipedia’s sourcing blacklist, having previously shared a viral clip from co-founder Sanger’s interview with commentator Tucker Carlson.
Such concerns have also informed recent tension between the Foundation and the community. Last month, the Foundation rejected two candidates running in community elections for board representatives, which sparked a wider community revolt. One of the rejected board candidates was an Iraqi national who had been the subject of negative media coverage for her anti-Israeli comments on social media, prompting concern the rejections resulted from political pressure. A board member who publicly commented on the rejections and tied that candidate’s rejection to the anti-Israeli posts subsequently suspended most of her board activities after the rejected candidate filed a conduct complaint over the board member’s disclosure.
(Disclosure: The author has been involved in disputes with several of the parties mentioned in the article)
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.
