Here is a specimen of the well-known podcast “Ask Haviv Anything”, with the moderator being Haviv Rettig Gur, described in a Sam Harris podcast as “a veteran Israeli journalist who serves as the senior analyst at The Times of Israel. He has covered Israel’s politics, foreign policy, and relationship with the U.S. and Jewish diaspora since 2005, reporting from over 20 countries. Since October 7, he has been touring the English-speaking world — the U.S., Canada, Australia, and the U.K. — to discuss the war in Gaza, resilience, and antisemitism.” In this 70-minute video, Haviv interviews Ashley Rindsberg “an American writer and a senior editor at Pirate Wires, an American online media company. He is the author of Tel Aviv Stories and The Gray Lady Winked: How The New York Times’s Misreporting, Distortions & Fabrications Radically Alter History.”
The subject is how Wikipedia, as well as reddit, have distorted the facts about Zionism and Israel by adopting a progressive, left-wing, and, yes, antisemitic stance. As I wrote a few days ago:
Wikipedia’s main “Israel” entry now declares that “following the October 7 attacks… Israel began committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza,” placing a blatant lie in the lead section meant for basic, non-contentious context.
As evidence, I heard from a reader who, upon sending me the video, added this:
As an example, a friend of mine noted that the Wikipedia article on Israel states that Israel started a genocide on Oct 7, 2023. She decided to try and edit it. She jumped through several hoops and I will share a quote from what Wikiedia sent her:
In short, you are not permitted to edit any page on Wikipedia related to the Arab-Israeli conflict until your account is 30 days old with 500 substantive edits (not edits made simply to reach 500). I will tell you that the current wording of the article was reached after extensive discussion and deliberation amongst Wikipedia contributors; you are free to review that discussion yourself, it may be accessed from Talk:Israel (see the FAQ at the top). 331dot (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
Edit requests are permitted if they are wholly uncontroversial (something that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with) and do not require extensive discussion to reach a consensus. 331dot (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2025 (UTC)
And it’s not just Judaica. Rindsberg notes that Wikipedia is also determined to ensure that the “lab leak theory” for the origin of covid remains a “conspiracy theory” (I myself am agnostic about the issue), and to the denigration of Trump.
The lesson: crowdsourcing does not ensure neutrality, and there is no chance to defeating a dedicated group of ideologue editors who dominate some topics. Rindsberg does discuss how to fix the problem of bias in Wikipedia, which is really a serious problem for some topics since Wikipedia is automatically given a #1 search rating by Google, making it the go-to source for people seeking information. The fixing begins with the kind of outing of sites instantiated in this discussion.
I am averse to long podcasts, but the eloquence of the discussants and my own interest in the topic kept me listening to the end. Even if you think Israel is committing genocide (and Ceiling Cat help you if you do), you will at least learn some things about the biases promulgated by one of the world’s most important sources of information. (Note the shorter discussion near the end arguing that reddit does the same thing.)
The piece ends with criticism of AI. Bogus AI writing and its bogus claims have apparently made their way into the scientific literature. Then these claims make their way back into popular culture when people cite “scientific information” that was actually written by AI in the first place. That doesn’t mean that we should stop using AI and ChatGPT, but that we have to carefully check any of their factual assertions.
Wikipedia has long been useless on any topic of woke salience (I use “woke” rather than “progressive” since that ideology does not constitute “progress”). The problem is that the woke see themselves as on a moral mission to put the world to rights and so put vastly more effort into tasks like editing Wikipedia and shutting down dissent (“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it” — Marx.)
The solution? Well, one solution is Grokipedia, which is far more fact based and neutral. Try, for example, reading this link and see if you think it better than Wikipedia.
Coel, thank you for the great insight on the use of the word “progressive” to describe the far left. I will also drop that word from my vocabulary. Well said!!
The woke have realised that they can get a very long way simply by controlling the language. Sadly this is very effective. That’s why they insist on mandated pronouns, but to give more examples:
Experiencing “harm” (encountering a different opinion) and feeling “safe” (never being disagreed with), or experiencing “hate” (any non-woke opinion).
“Islamophobia” (of course) and “transphobia” (for any dissent to any of their demands), but also “trans women” (use “trans IDing males”) and “gender-affirming care” (which is not healthcare).
“Minoritized” and “marginalized” (implying the groups are actively oppressed) rather than the neutral “minority”, plus the use of “minority” only for less-successful groups (so Asian Americans and Jews don’t count). Ditto “racialized” (because it’s purely a social construction) instead of “race”.
Then, of course, there is “genocide” which now seems to mean “there have been some civilian casualties” (aren’t there always?) or perhaps “the wrong guys are winning this war”.
I’m sure people can think of loads more …
The problem with Asians and Jews is that they don’t act like proper victims. If only Jews and Asians would stop achieving economically and academically and had high rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, family dysfunction, and crime in their communities, they would be loved every bit as much as the less successful minorities.
I’ve dropped it as well, in favor of the far more descriptive “regressive left.”
Thanks for the link. I was hesitant about grok because it has come out with some wild woke statements in the past, but that link seems more factual, and I like that, you can still cross check the original sources.
I have sadly noticed the same thing on Wikipedia. It’s also seen in pages about topics like evolutionary psychology, human intelligence, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There’s no system in place to stop ideological editors from taking over.
I had no idea. I had always heard that Wikipedia was very accurate. Well, maybe it is if you want to know who won last year’s Super Bowl, but going forward, on anything touching on politics or religion, I will always read their pronouncements with a lot more care. Thank you for the post. It enlightened me and probably many others.
Wikipedia seems pretty accurate on non-controversial topics. But it’s got a strong “progressive” bias on controversial subjects.
I have heard that Grokipedia is biased in the opposite direction (reflecting Elon Musk’s biases). It also has far fewer entries.
I avoid both on controversial topics. Over time, I’ve found other sources (often from here at WEIT).
Lots of people will, of course, be trying to discredit Grokipedia by asserting that it is biased, but can anyone give actual examples of it being biased and unfair in the opposite direction to Wikipedia?
I just checked their Israel page, and it seems perfectly fair and factual to me.
https://grokipedia.com/page/Israel
On the Russia / Ukraine conflict I think Wikipedia is better.
Grokipedia has a section on “Controversies / Alternative Perspectives” which essentially rehashes Russian propaganda.
Wikipedia describes this too but calls it “Russian Propaganda and Disinformation Campaign.”
You don’t even have to look. If you know that there is a huge ideological dispute about some issue, like the history of Armenia, or the value of the HHS report on the gender affirming treatment of children, you can predict that Wikipedia editors will keep busy altering the Wikipedia entry to reflect their views. Wikipedia is great if you want to know the height of Mt. Washington, or any other uncontested matter, but don’t look at Wikipedia for any issue with ideological salience for some group.
Wikipedia is great for some things, less so for others. No. Crowdsourcing doesn’t guarantee neutrality, because the crowd isn’t always neutral (and may even be wrong). My guess is that coverage of current events, particularly events steeped in controversy, will be vulnerable to misrepresentation—at least in the short run. Is Wikipedia self-correcting in the long run? We’ll see.
The major issue is that Wikipedia is NOT crowdsourcing on controversial topics. It is quite the opposite. A few super editors act as gatekeepers for many subjects. For example, it appears that a “gang of 40” controls all of the content on Israel, systematically editing it in a far left fashion and banning anyone who deviates from the Woke script.
All explained in the linked interview…well worth a listen.
An intrinsic problem is who guards the guardians.
Having several co-equal guardians with differing self-interests can work, but is subject to capture by a powerful common interest. Rome, Wikipedia, Political parties….
The Lumpers tend to have a structural advantage over the Splitters. So we get a whole lot o’ lumps.
“Splitters unite! ….”
A recent podcast about Wikipedia https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily–wikipedia–ref-working–and-the-battle-over-reality. There is discussion about grocopidea and AI as well.
No doubt there are many biased areas, but it is huge and is on balance a public good in my opinion, so I still give them a little money.
If they are pushing Islamist propaganda they will not get a single cent from me.
Ditto
Make that three. I have contributed over the years but quit this year because of their ideological bias on Israel. A bias that has been picked up and used to answer inquiries by the AI assist in my browser.
I used to be relatively active on Wikipedia (page creations, Did You Know features, getting on for 20,000 edits, etc.), but haven’t been for a while. I’ve not had a chance to watch the Ask Haviv Anything episode yet, but I suspect that part of Wikipedia’s anti-Israel stance is enabled because much of the mainstream media (Wikipedia’s “reliable sources”) share the same bias. Any attempts to redress Wikipedia’s articles on the topic will run into this difficulty.
The same problem exists on articles covering sex/gender issues, where groups advocating for LGB (as opposed to LGBTQIAP+) issues or women’s rights are labelled as “anti-trans” organisations. Once again, there are plenty of mainstream media citations backing up this biased position.
In both cases, there are plenty of activist editors willing to make the most of the media’s “progressive” coverage of these topics and also to embed the prevalent bias in Wikipedia’s policies and to then enforce them zealously.
FWIW here’s the Grokipedia entry to compare for October 7th Attacks on Israel :
https://grokipedia.com/page/2023_Hamas-led_attack_on_Israel
The 200 references did not include reddit (so far so good).
I posted the John Stossel video below a while ago that showed activism specifically consistent with that shown here :
“Coordinated groups now edit Wikipedia to spread propaganda.
For example, 40 Pro-Hamas editors: “Made 1 million edits to 10,000 articles,” says @NPOVmedia‘s @ashleyrindsberg. “They’re removing mentions of terror attacks.” ”
https://x.com/johnstossel/status/2002884034163048610?s=46
Ideally, there should be a mechanism to report and remove editors who consistently change facts, but such groups are likely to be in contact with each other outwith Wikipedia, so a quick id change and they would be welcomed back into the clique and carry on as before.
Agree, Wikipedia was created to contain facts, not opinions and the editors are expected to comply with rules to ensure that happens, so I think headline should be “How Wikipedia editors distort Israel and Jews in the interests of their own “progressive” ideology”.
Sadly the strength of Wikipedia is also its greatest weakness. It’s exciting to have so much new information being added by experts, but it has no mechanism to weed out bad actors, especially when editors ignore the rules. They are the ones destroying what could have been a great resource.
It’s good that the rules allow lock-down of controversial pages to stop malicious updates, and you need to go through a discussion process to change them. I think it is reasonable that someone should have had experience of following the rules before being allowed to update those pages, but the rules do nothing to stop corrupt factions from monopolising a page and it seems that no one is policing the police nowadays.
If Israel had wanted to commit genocide it could easily have razed Palestine to the ground within 24hrs of the massacre, before anyone could stop them. That clearly isn’t their intention, unlike Hamas who have the genocide of Israelis as their goal.
I think it’s time for Jimmy Wales to reassess his project and add better oversight. Perhaps people with clout could appeal to him directly.
Many fewer people are donating to Wikipedia these days (including yours truly), which is why they are doing much more e-begging now.
It’s hardly just ‘Current Events’ that have issues on wikipedia.
It’s in German, but this article continues to be one of my go-to examples for Wikipedia being a collection of comedy skits: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britisch-Franz%C3%B6sischer_Kolonialkonflikt_w%C3%A4hrend_der_Koalitionskriege
Choice quote: “Napoleon took advantage of this and unexpectedly occupied the Cape Colony and Ceylon. The occupations met with no significant resistance.”
Needless to say, this never happened.
Another example, this time in English and entering the somewhat more topical realm of biology/evolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Brain_and_senses
A couple years ago, Steve Brusette, author of ‘The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs’, made some waves in the media when he suggested that Tyrannosaurus rex had ‘Chimp-level’ intelligence (Example article here: https://magazine.columbia.edu/article/book-excerpt-rise-and-fall-dinosaurs He was all over the online media at the time, though), which the wiki article uses as a competing hypothesis to a preceding citation suggesting rather more reptilian-level intelligence.
Problem: While the Wikipedia article mentions studies by Steve Brusette, the actual citation is not from any scientific study. It’s from a popscience book.
Thankfully however, some of the articles fawning over the book gave us part of the reasoning behind the bold claims concerning Tyrannosaurus rex’ intelligence: An encephalization quotient of 2- 2.4.
I did find some papers by Steve Brusette, but alas, none that covered Tyrannosaurus rex intelligence (Tyrannosaurus phylogeny was covered, though).
I did, however, find a paper by someone else mentioning a Tyrannosaurus rex encephalization quotient of 2.41. ‘Relative size of brain and cerebrum in tyrannosaurid dinosaurs: an analysis using brain-endocast quantitative relationships in extant alligators’ by J. M. Parrish, M. Henderson, P. J. Currie, and E. Koppelhus.
… where this encephalization quotient is measured specifically in comparison to modern reptiles (whereas ‘The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs’ pretends something else. To quote: “The largest tyrannosaurs like T. rex had an EQ in the range of 2.0 to 2.4. By comparison, our EQ is about 7.5, dolphins come in around 4.0 to 4.5, chimps at about 2.2 to 2.5, dogs and cats are in the 1.0 to 1.2 range, and mice and rats languish around 0.5. Based on these numbers, we can say that Rex was roughly as smart as a chimp and more intelligent than dogs and cats.”), which specifically notes that this encephalization quotient is overly optimistic, and which suggests that the closest extant morphological comparison to a Tyrannosaurus rex braincase is that of an alligator.
This is loosely in line with other papers specifically covering Tyrannosaurus skulls/intelligence.
My never going to buy a book by Steve Brusette on account of not trusting him to not misrepresent data to suit his agenda aside, good job on ‘Teaching the Controversy’, Wikipedia. Popscience books definitely deserve representation on par with actual scientific papers and are just as valuable for citation purposes.
Even if the likely sources the popscience books use say something completely different.
I’m assuming the description of the article and the general attitude towards Israel relates to the English-language Wikipedia. Is anyone familiar enough with a different language version able to say whether the same issue is found there? Or is this just an anglophone problem?
This guy (Haviv Rettig Gur) knows his stuff! I always learn so much from him. I appreciate this post. Thank you!