User:Chetsford/ProposedSpinoffArticle

In June 2024, content produced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) was determined to be "generally unreliable" in relation to several topics by the community of the English-language Wikipedia. The decision to classify the ADL as "generally unreliable" was both denounced and endorsed by observers, and some have opined it will have an impact on the reputation of the ADL.

Background

Wikipedia is an online enyclcopedia written and edited by a community of volunteers and operated on their behalf by the Wikimedia Foundation. It is among the 10 most-visited sites in the world and, as of 2015, hosted more than five million articles on a variety of topics.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, "editorial controversies on Wikipedia are endlessly debated – and these conflicts make ... article[s] better in a process Queensland University of Technology’s Dr Kim Osman calls “generative friction”. Because individual editors are largely anonymous and non-experts about the subjects of the articles they edit, the authority of any specific article's content is linked to its sourced references which, according to Slate, "outsource the responsibility for fact-finding to secondary sources". Through "behind the scenes discussions", Wikipedia editors determine which sources are reliable for use on the site, identifying those “with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sources previously determined to be unreliable by the Wikipedia community include the National Inquirer, Newsmax, and Occupy Democrats.

Reliability and unreliability of the ADL

Prior to June 2024, the ADL was considered a generally reliable source, though some editors considered it a biased source on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that "should be used with caution, if at all" on the topic.

Determination of unreliability

Informal discussion among Wikipedia editors about the reliability of the ADL started on March 25, 2024. On April 6, a formal discussion began about the suitability of the ADL as a source for use on Wikipedia in relation to three subjects: the Israel-Palestine conflict, antisemitism, and the organization's Hate Symbols Database. The discussion ultimately involved more than 120 editors.

In June 2024, the English Wikipedia community determined the ADL was "generally unreliable" on the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Wikipedia administrator who evaluated the community's discussion to determine its result cited the existence of substantial evidence of the ADL acting as a "pro-Israeli advocacy group" that has published unretracted misinformation "to the point that it taints their reputation for accuracy and fact checking regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", as well as a "habit on the ADL's part of conflating criticism of the Israeli government’s actions with antisemitism". Later that month, the Wikipedia community concluded the ADL's lack of reliability extended to "the intersection of antisemitism and the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic", but "the ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned". The community also concluded that the ADL's hate symbol database was "reliable for the existence of a symbol and for straightforward facts about it, but not reliable for more complex details, such as symbols’ history".

Response by the ADL

The ADL condemned the initial decision, alleging it was part of a "campaign to delegitimize" the organization. The ADL opined that editors opposing the ban "provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter." In a later interview on the subject with MSNBC's Morning Joe, CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said the decision was the result of a "small group of people [who] take a political position, and they're not accountable". The decision was also criticized by over 40 Jewish organizations, including Jewish Federations of North America, B'nai B'rith International and HIAS. In a letter coordinated by the ADL and sent to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, the organizations stated "As leading Jewish communal organizations, we express our concern and dismay by Wikipedia's attack on ADL's reliability on the topic of antisemitism and other issues of central concern to the Jewish community." The letter also called for the foundation to "immediately launch an investigation into this decision" and to reconsider it.

On June 25, 2024, the Wikimedia Foundation issued a preliminary statement in response to the letter, stating that the groups' call for an "investigation" and action by the foundation represented "a misunderstanding of the situation and how Wikipedia works". The foundation, at the time, said it was still considering a fuller response that would help "raise more understanding with these groups about how Wikipedia works". A press release issued the following day by the foundation stated that "... the Foundation has not, and does not, intervene in decisions made by the community about the classification of a source".

Reaction

Analysis

James Loeffler of Johns Hopkins University, a professor of modern Jewish history, commented that the Wikipedia editors were "heavily influenced by the ADL leadership's comments", which took "a much more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism". Loeffler also said that the English Wikipedia's decision was a "significant hit" to the credibility of the ADL. Dov Waxman, professor of Israel Studies, said that if "Wikipedia and other sources and the journalists start ignoring the ADL's data, it becomes a real issue for Jewish Americans who are understandably concerned about the rise of antisemitism". The Independent called it a "major blow" to the ADL. CNN called it "a stunning rebuke to one of the world's preeminent authorities on anti-Jewish hate and a significant advocate for the rights and causes of American Jews."

Commentary

Mira Sucharov of Carleton University said the decision was "a sign that the Jewish community needs better institutions". Writing in The Forward, senior columnist Rob Eshman opined that the determination by Wikipedia that the ADL was generally unreliable was a "wake-up call" the organization "badly needs" and that it "must do better". In a statement in response to the decision, Jewish Voice for Peace accused the ADL of lying and said "thank you Wikipedia". In an editorial column, Jonathan S. Tobin juxtaposed the Wikipedia community's decision with the ADL's prior advocacy for content moderation on social media, writing that "... the ADL’s pro-censorship chickens have come home to roost".

Commenting during an episode of The Hill's Rising Robby Soave said "I agree with the Wikipedia editors on this — I find the organization to be unreliable some of the time".