Posted on 08/03/2007 1:11:01 PM PDT by IsraelBeach
Wikipedia: Israel Maintains Illegal Occupation, Brutal Apartheid
By Joel Leyden
Israel News Agency
Jerusalem ---- August 3 ..... Wikipedia, the so-called free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, is again attacking Israel with libel and slander equal only to racist comments made by Iran, Syria, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda and Hamas.
Wikipedia, which has been thrown out of almost every university and every major news organization as a credible source, states that the residents of city of Tayibe (Taibeh or Tayiba) live under "illegal Israel occupation and brutal apartheid control." What Wikipedia does not state is that the residents of Tayibe frequent my home town of Ra'anana, Israel every chance they get.
They come to the Rananeem Shopping Mall and window shop, buy clothes, eat fast food and their kids play with mine at the children's air-conditioned indoor playground. There is no hostility, no verbal or non-verbal expression of aggression. These are truly peaceful people who accept, enjoy and respect Israel. They have only compliments for Israel democracy, commerce for which they live off and enjoy modern, Western style shopping in Ra'anana and nearby Netanya, Israel.
The only incitement from Taibeh that I have ever witnessed comes only from Wikipedia!
At the same time, Wikipedia is denying that "Jewish Networking" does not exist. As a few, good hearted Jews and loyal Zionists attempt to place Jewish geography into Wikipedia they get knocked down by resident Wikipedia administrator Capo Jew - user Jpgordon aka Josh Gordon. Anything which is Jewish or of Israel is handled with contempt by Islamic terrorists (Wikipedia refers to al-Qaeda as "militants"), anti-Semites or extreme left wing Jews and Israelis at Wikipedia.
And according to Wikipedia, Palestine is a state. Would someone please be kind enough to show me Palestine currency and postage stamps?
Anti-Semitism starts at Wikipedia with a simple message from one Wikipedia administrator (Slimvirgin aka Danny Wool) to another administrator User:Jpgordon aka Josh Gordon, stating:
"Judaism AfDs" (AfD means that a Wikipedia article is slated for deletion. Notice how the word Judaism is used here. Wikipedia management wants a Jewish administrator to discredit or destroy another Jew. Much like how the Nazis used Capos - Jewish collaborators who worked with the Gestapo. In this manner they can't be blamed of anti-Semitism.) :"Josh, your input here" (Slimvirgin points to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It works very much like a tag team Mafia. The Wikipedia administrators, like blind sheep, are requested to delete Wikipedia content that Wikipedia management does not care for.
But this is no surprise to the Israel News Agency. Although the INA has been accredited by the Israel Government Press Office since 1995 and has been indexed by Google News since 2002 reaching over 60 million readers, both the publisher and the INA articles have been removed by Wikipedia management after Wikipedia's own community had a consensus to "keep" the INA.
The Israel News Agency has joined dozens of global newspapers including the New York Times, The Village Voice, The Boston Globe and the Guardian in criticizing Wikipedia for its blatant censorship of articles and allowing hundreds of cases of libel and slander to go unnoticed by many of its administrators.
The INA has been credited with many exclusives including Al-Qaeda : The 39 Principles of Holy War, with news reports directly from the scenes of the Passover Massacre in Netanya, Israel, the Tel Aviv terror attack on the Dolphanarium, and the 9/11 terror attack in New York. The Israel News Agency recently sponsored a global SEO contest to address the Holocaust cartoon contest which was coordinated by the Iran government. The INA has served as a news source to Google News since 2002.
The Wikipedia attacks against the Israel News Agency began shortly after the INA published Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander.
Censoring is not something new at Wikipedia.
According to Wikitruth, Alan Dershowitz was censored by Wikipedia Jimbo Wales on December 8, 2005. "In true Wikipedia style, this article was reduced down to a single sentence reading "Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School." on the early morning of December 8, 2005. His rational for doing so was: "I have received a very strong complaint about this article, and so I have protected this very short version for tonight. Unlike the normal case where protected articles should not be edited, I want to try an experiment -- admins can edit this article. We need to verify very carefully, with documentable sources, every single fact in the article.--Jimbo Wales 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)"
Wikitruth continues: "The standout effect of the censorship of Dershowitz's article is that as of March 22, 2006 it sources a dispute with Noam Chomsky in its references that has been censored from the article! The edit history prior to December 8, 2005 at 00:07 UTC has been manipulated or otherwise destroyed from the Alan Dershowitz article by Jimbo and his underlings, very possibly a GFDL violation. Dershowitz is a highly controversial lawyer, famous for getting into scrapes with other high-profile types. That's fairly common knowledge: few of us would not have seen his face in the paper at one time or another." "But Wikipedia thinks he's just another lawyer."
" Dershowitz didn't like his Wikipedia article. If you don't like what the wiki says about you, there are two roads to fixing it. First you can try editing the article. You'll generally be heavily abused by Wikithugs, who will chant weird invocations like WP:AUTO at you and expect you to understand that that means they believe they have a license to treat you like shit if you have the temerity to work on your own biography. Then, if you are a high-powered lawyer, or know one, you can try the second route. Give Jimmy a call and use the magic words - the magic words are "legal action". But take care. Don't mention them on the wiki, or a Wikithug will banish you for "making a legal threat". Make your legal threats to Jimbo directly."
The Village Voice recently commented: "Not notable? Wikipedia hosts approximately three jillion full-page articles about local high schools, complete with alma mater lyrics, and it can't make room for a critical look at its own practices? Perversely enough, though, "notability" has indeed become a byword for Wikipedia's freelance fact police, who delete at will whatever they think might worsen the site's smoldering reputation as a trivia dump."
One should note that many of the editors at Wikipedia are professional, dedicated, creative and highly talented, but they do not make up a majority. They deserve credit for their many hours and contributions, but can you imagine a car repair garage stating: "the free garage where anyone can play with your cylinders?"
Are Wikipedia's investors and venture capital sources such as Bessemer Venture Partners, Dan Gillmor, The Omidyar Network, Pierre Omidyar, Mark Andreessen, Reid Hoffman, Joichi Ito, and Mitch Kapor aware of the rampant libel, slander and censorship taking place in Wikipedia's so-called "citizens media?"
To censor any free and democratic source of news is a violation of our basic rights to free speech in a free society. As Wikipedia is a leading source of information coming out of the US, censorship of non-inciteful accredited news media is a direct breach of public trust which only serves the egos and pride of Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales.
Censorship at Wikipedia is a highly serious and dangerous action. Furthermore, Wikipedia, which is now being blocked for use by a majority of universities and colleges for its lack of accountability, through its lack of accountable user and administrator posts could actually be aiding terrorists to communicate with one another on the Internet through their anonymous edits.
Are we witnessing a new era of McCarthyism? Is it no mistake that al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, Hizbullah and the PFLP are referred to as "militant" groups rather than organizations which plan and implement terrorism?
Perhaps the worst case of Wikipedia libel, slander and censorship centered around former USA TODAY editorial page editor John Seigenthaler. Wikipedia for four months carried an article falsely linking him to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy. But as angry as Seigenthaler was, and as untrue as the article had been, it's unlikely that he has a good court case against Wikipedia, according to legal experts interviewed by CNET News.com.
Seigenthaler himself acknowledged as much in a USA Today op-ed piece. A case in which a man was falsely linked on Wikipedia to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy has led some to question the online encyclopedia's libel liability.
Bottom line: While Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, the issues raised by the Seigenthaler case should be carefully considered, some legal experts say. More stories on Wikipedia thanks to section 230 of the Federal Communications Decency Act (CDA), which became law in 1996, Wikipedia is most likely safe from legal liability for libel, regardless of how long an inaccurate article stays on the site. That's because it is a service provider as opposed to a publisher such as Salon.com or CNN.com.
In his scathing, Nov. 29 opinion column in USA Today, the 78-year-old Seigenthaler wrote that in the original Wikipedia article, "one sentence was true. I was Robert Kennedy's administrative assistant." The article was written by an anonymous Wikipedia user traceable only to a BellSouth Internet account, but Seigenthaler added that the giant ISP wouldn't reveal the author's name. And despite his protestations, Seigenthaler wrote, Wikipedia's only action prior to removing the offending article on Oct. 5 was to change a misspelling on May 29, just three days after it was originally posted.
"I have no idea whose sick mind conceived the false, malicious "biography" that appeared under my name for 132 days on Wikipedia, the popular, online, free encyclopedia whose authors are unknown and virtually untraceable. I phoned Jimmy Wales, Wikipedia's founder and asked, "Do you ... have any way to know who wrote that?" "No, we don't," he said. Representatives of the other two Websites said their computers are programmed to copy data verbatim from Wikipedia, never checking whether it is false or factual. Naturally, I want to unmask my "biographer." And, I am interested in letting many people know that Wikipedia is a flawed and irresponsible research tool."
"When I was a child, my mother lectured me on the evils of "gossip." She held a feather pillow and said, "If I tear this open, the feathers will fly to the four winds, and I could never get them back in the pillow. That's how it is when you spread mean things about people." For me, that pillow is a metaphor for Wikipedia."
Do you want your children hanging out in Wikipedia or referencing material from unprofessional, biased editors who hide behind aliases?
A Wikipedia editor who was empowered with administrative powers at Wikipedia with the nickname "Essjay", the 24-year old Jordan passed himself off as an older and more mature character: a Professor of Theology with two PhDs - these impressive credentials even winning him fame in a New Yorker feature. The deception did little to stop Jordan's meteoric ascent. Wales appointed Jordan to "ArbCom", Wikpedia's Supreme Court, and even found him a position at his own commercial venture, Wikia Inc.
The deception was initially unearthed by Daniel Brandt last January, and has been simmering since early February, when Wikipedians themselves put two and two together: the Essjay that Wales had blessed couldn't be the character that Essjay claimed to be. It breezed into public view last week, with a short disclaimer on the New Yorker's Website.
Wales initially said he was happy with Jordan's deception. But after much criticism Wales asked "Essjay" to resign.
The Wikipedia incident raises more questions than it answers, as neither Wales, Jordan, nor the editors at the New Yorker appears to show a shred of regret for their behavior. And this is what turns a dull story about the procedures of a tediously procedural website into a kind of modern morality play. We're so busy being sorry, we've no time to apologize.
"It's also one that's thrown up some moments of comic relief," observes the The Register.
"In its account of the episode, the New York Times cites Jordan, in his professorial disguise, defending his use of the seminal IDG philosophy textbook, Catholicism for Dummies, explaining - 'This is a text I often require for my students, and I would hang my own Ph.D. on it’s [sic] credibility.'
For Wales' explanation to be plausible, we must therefore assume he hadn't checked Essjay's credentials when he promoted him to Arbitration Committee, and was ignorant of the background of his newest staffer when Jordan was employed by Wikia Inc. And he never read the New Yorker.
All these things are possible - but even with the presumption of innocence, it does leave you wondering what goes on in Jimbo's head.
As for Jordan, he was anything but contrite. He expressed regret only for hurting his fellow Wikipedians' feelings - not for doing anything wrong - which as Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger recounts, is a defiant non-apology.
And the New Yorker, after being alerted to the deception by Brandt, conducted a thorough investigation - which miraculously exonerated its internal fact-checker and star writer!
This sorry apology was produced: "We were comfortable with the material we got from Essjay because of Wikipedia's confirmation of his work and their endorsement of him."
In other words, the New Yorker found some fictional characters to endorse another fictional character - which made it all OK. You wonder why they didn't just take the afternoon off and go and see Lord of the Rings.
"In retrospect, we should have let our readers know that we had been unable to corroborate Essjay’s identity beyond what he told us.”
Larry Sanger states: "Something came to my notice about the Essjay scandal that removed all doubt on a certain point, which placed things into a clearer perspective."
"A Wikinews article quotes a page from Essjay’s old user talk archives. (Note, this latter page is hosted by Daniel Brandt, a harsh Wikipedia critic. I would link to the original Wikipedia page, but it appears to have been deleted from Wikipedia.) Essjay wrote on Feb. 2: 'Once I accepted a position with Wikia, I was in a safe place to “come out,” and I did. Before I accepted the position, I provided all my real details to Angela [Beesley] and Jimbo, and immediately provided the same information to [Wikipedia lawyer] Brad Patrick.'
"This clearly confirms that Jimmy and crew did know that Essjay was a 24-year-old who had been impersonating a professor, and they knew this as early as January, when Essjay started work with Wikia," says Sanger. "That entails that in January, Wikia hired Essjay in full knowledge that Essjay had been impersonating a professor."
"In February, Jimmy nominated Essjay to the Arbitration Committee knowing that Essjay had been impersonating a professor. The Arbitration Committee had to accept Essjay’s nomination. Presumably, many if not all of the members also knew that he had been impersonating a professor. In February, when Jimmy told The New Yorker, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it,” he was referring to the fact that Essjay had been impersonating a professor."
"I would like to point out, therefore, why this can be considered a scandal: it reveals that Wikipedia’s management did not regard it as a problem if one of its own co-managers engaged in identity fraud for personal advantage," says Sanger. "Indeed, Wikipedia’s management knowingly aided and defended such fraud. Only after these sad facts were publicly exposed, only after there was a hue and cry, did Jimmy Wales decide to ask for Essjay’s resignation. Critics may claim that the world of Wikipedia has its own irremediably corrupt ethics; but the recent backpedalling of Wikipedia’s management actually demonstrates that Wikipedia is in fact still constrained by the higher ethics of the larger and more mature world of which it is a part. That’s one good thing – it is, perhaps, the silver lining to be found here in Citizendium."
So now we have addressed how credible Wikipedia is.
Let's get back to our lead paragraph.
If you are Jewish, do you want to support Wikipedia or would you rather write a letter to the ADL? I know that those of us who work and live in Israel do not see Wikipedia as a friend. Nor do we expect an apology to be coming any time soon from Jimbo Wales.
But perhaps more than the people of Israel, the Arab residents of Tayibe should really be upset. They have no love for Hamas, Islamic Jihad or al-Qaeda. They are simple people whose only desire is reinforcing peace through local trade with Israel and feeding their families. To enjoy a relaxing, air-conditioned stroll through a shopping mall in Israel without discrimination, without prejudice, without apartheid.
Wikipedia's slogan is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."
Does that now include Osama bin-Laden posing as a citizen of Tayibe?
When you have an “encyclopaedia” that anyone can edit - anyone will.
Wikipedia doesn’t ‘state’ anything. Someone put it there (it may very well have been a Muslim activist) and you can change it if you like.
Wikipedia is only good for providing links to other sites with information.
Wikipedia is trash-
It’s at best a good starting point to do research.
I like wikipedia. I know people go on there and put nasty stuff in, but it is a good first place to go to get the gist of most subjects.
In fact, when rampant vandalism occurs, the entry is usually locked and a header is put up saying the facts are “unconfirmed” or “controversial”
Check out Wikitruth.
It’s a good starting point for getting a handle on subjects for which no controversies exist. That’s all it’s good for.
Here’s a better definition of the “Palestinian Cause”:
Not always true. You can change some articles but on contentious articles they change it back, and sometimes revoke your privileges. Some articles or topics they lock to prevent changes.
Bears following up.
Not exactly.
Depends on who the site guard dog is at the moment. His powers are absolute, and totally independent of knowledge or judgement. If, for instance, he/she is sympathetic to a muslim challenging anything (factual or not), it is not allowed.
That a Palestinian family gave birth to a Hamas Mickey Mouse (a rodent) does not speak well of the Palestinians ;>
I like Wikipedia. I get a lot of good solid information from it.
I have changed stuff and its stayed up. I don’t really frequent the historical analysis stuff though.
This paragraph was just deleted from the above mentioned article in Wikipedia. A Freeper must have done it ;>
Let's see how long it will take until this good, accurate and objective edit is undone....
So edit it back! That’s what goes on a lot with controversial subjects.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.