It’s a Zionist occupation, but online. 

Wikipedia, the world's largest and most influential online encyclopedia, has become a battleground for competing narratives. Among the most contentious and fiercely debated subjects is the Palestinian cause. For Palestinians, the struggle to have their history and perspectives fairly represented on Wikipedia is an ongoing one, with implications that extend far beyond the digital realm.

So Palestinians are not only struggling to get their voices heard in the real world, but are also forced to wage fierce battles online, especially on Wikipedia. 

How does Wikipedia work?

First, we have to understand how this platform works. Wikipedia's reach and influence are staggering. With millions of daily users and content available in multiple languages, the platform's open-editing model, which allows anyone to contribute and edit articles, is both its greatest strength and weakness. This model makes Wikipedia vulnerable to biases, edit wars, and the systematic silencing of certain and crucial viewpoints.

The battles online 

The Palestinian cause is a prime example of how narratives are contested on Wikipedia. Articles related to Palestine and its history often become arenas for ideological battles, where pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian editors clash over content, wording, and sources. This struggle can result in significant distortions and omissions, impacting how millions of readers understand the ongoing struggle that Palestinians have been under brutal occupation for 76 years now. 

Systemic bias & disinformation

Pro-Palestinian voices frequently find themselves being erased on Wikipedia along with their identities. Several factors contribute to this imbalance. Firstly, there is a systemic bias inherent in the editing community. Several studies have shown that Wikipedia editors are predominantly from Western countries, which can lead to a skewed representation of non-Western issues. Additionally, organized groups with political agendas have been known to influence Wikipedia content. 

For example, pro-"Israel" advocacy groups have established networks of editors to monitor and edit articles related to Palestine, ensuring that the narrative aligns with their viewpoints.

Back in 2010, The Guardian reported that two Israeli groups launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, offering workshops to teach people how to "rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages" on the site.

One of the groups participating in the workshops, the Yesha Council, was directed by former Israeli Prime Minister, Naftali Bennett. At that time, the former PM said, "We don't want to change Wikipedia or turn it into a propaganda arm… We just want to show the other side. People think that Israelis are mean, evil people…"

Bennett, at that time, protested and was annoyed by the fact that "the map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria," as if he was expressing his desire to document the actual occupation on Google Maps. 

Online maps often present the Israeli perspective, depicting occupied territories as legitimate parts for "Israel" to just take. However, locating an authentic Palestinian map reflecting the true borders of Palestine can feel like a formidable challenge. It's a digital struggle to access representations that align with the Palestinian narrative and accurately portray their land.

But what about Palestine? 

For Palestinians, the fight for fair narration of their struggle on Wikipedia is an uphill battle. Articles about key historical events, such as the Nakba (the 1948 catastrophe), the occupation of Palestinian territories, and the ongoing resistance movements, often face relentless scrutiny and edits aimed at minimizing or discrediting the Palestinian perspective. Efforts to highlight Israeli human rights violations, illegal settlements, and the daily struggles of Palestinian people are frequently challenged or removed.

Massacres that often happen against the Palestinians are usually found justified without having the full context of the story. 

Related News

Kahana resigns from Gantz' party, may join Bennett's

200+ protest ex-Israeli PM's visit to Columbia University

Who’s behind Wikipedia?

"I’m a strong supporter of Israel," Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia once said to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) during an interview. 

He said these words while he traveled to occupied Palestine to accept the Dan David Prize that was given yearly at Tel Aviv University. 

Back in 2015, a piece in The Times of Israel discussed the founder of Wikipedia and how he is "unabashedly" pro-"Israel". 

The article opens with a portrayal of Wikipedia grappling with a "dilemma": The uncertainty over what to label the separation barrier running along the West Bank. Initially termed as a "security fence," the addition of the phrase "apartheid wall" by an editor added complexity. Now, a search for "apartheid wall" on Wikipedia yields the term "Israeli West Bank barrier" as the top result.

This background sheds light on why Wikipedia maintains an article titled "Arbitration Palestine-Israeli Article," established in 2008 to create a code of conduct for users.

However, it's important to note the inherent bias in these regulations, which require users to be registered with the site for at least 30 days and have a history of over 500 edits before they can contribute to Wikipedia pages related to Palestine. Such restrictions can limit the perspectives and contributions of those intimately familiar with the Palestinian struggle, potentially skewing the narrative presented on the platform.

Recent example of Wikipedia wars 

A significant "edit war" has erupted on Wikipedia regarding an article about an Israeli massacre in the Nuseirat refugee camp near Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on June 8th.

The brutal aggression, aimed at retrieving four Israeli captives from Gaza, killed more than 270 displaced Palestinians while injuring over 700 others. 

Currently, this Israeli massacre is at the center of an intense editing war on Wikipedia, leading the platform to limit editing permissions for the page covering the event. 

Go look up the Nuseirat massacre on Google. You'll find a result that says '2024 Nuseirat rescue operation'.

On the side, a Wikipedia link describes the Israeli operation to retrieve four of its captives in Gaza.

Google does not show the fact that the "rescue operation" is a… pic.twitter.com/VLmgTFp5Bq

— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) June 10, 2024

The article provoked outrage among numerous X users who were particularly frustrated that a Google search for the term "Nuseirat massacre" only yielded a Wikipedia article labeled as a "rescue operation" at the top of the results.

This prompted the question: Why did Wikipedia restrict edits on the Nuseirat page? Generally, most Wikipedia entries are editable by any registered user, but some articles are "protected" to prevent "disruptive editing on controversial topics," as stated on Wikipedia’s homepage. When articles are locked, the editing capabilities are restricted to slow down and control changes.

There are different levels of protection. The Nuseirat pages have been "fully protected," meaning only extended confirmed users and administrators on Wikipedia can edit them.

And this is one example of how Palestinian narratives are taken into account online. 

Searching for "Gaza genocide" on Google yields the top Wikipedia result titled "Palestinian genocide accusation," subtly downplaying the severity of the ongoing Israeli genocide by framing it as a mere "accusation" rather than acknowledging the grim reality of the situation.

Searching for "Gaza genocide Wikipedia" brings up the top result titled "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza," potentially minimizing the severity of Israeli actions in Gaza.

Pro-Palestine activists trying to counteract bias

Despite these challenges, there are ongoing efforts to counteract bias and ensure a more fair representation of the Palestinian narrative on Wikipedia. 

The hidden narrative battles for Palestine on Wikipedia highlight the broader struggle for control over historical and contemporary narratives. In the ongoing battle for truth and justice, every edit counts.

Ensuring that Palestinian voices are heard and their perspectives fairly represented is crucial for a more accurate and documented understanding of the ongoing struggle. 

A quick search on Wikipedia for Palestine-related topics reveals a striking bias, prompting skepticism about its credibility as a source for understanding our struggle for freedom.

In the end, while "Israel" may see itself as thriving and its narrative as unbiased, pro-Israeli users online often go to great lengths, such as taking online courses, to defend the existence of a colonial entity. 

However, if pro-Palestine users were not effectively highlighting and exposing what they see as the true face of "Israel", the occupying forces might not be as vehemently concerned about their online presence and image. The occupation's reaction to being challenged online suggests that this digital battleground holds significant importance, even if they claim otherwise.