More than 40 91传媒 organizations sent a letter to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) Board of Trustees expressing 鈥渃oncern and dismay鈥� over Wikipedia editors鈥� recent actions to downgrade the Anti-Defamation League鈥檚 (ADL) reliability and urging the WMF to 鈥渢o start the process for administrative reconsideration.鈥�
As 听I have previously written, Wikipedia editors designated the ADL as being 鈥済enerally unreliable鈥� on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that ADL is only (meaning that its use is context-dependent) on antisemitism outside of matters related to Israel and Zionism.
鈥淎s leading 91传媒 communal organizations, we express our concern and dismay by Wikipedia鈥檚 attack on ADL鈥檚 reliability on the topic of antisemitism and other issues of central concern to the 91传媒 community,鈥� the 43 91传媒 organizations, which include the Conference of Presidents of Major 91传媒 Organizations, the American 91传媒 Committee and B鈥檔ai B鈥檙ith International, wrote to the WMF. 鈥淔undamentally, Wikipedia is stripping the 91传媒 community of the right to defend itself from the hatred that targets our community. We urge you to immediately launch an investigation into this decision and the motivations behind it, and to start the process for administrative reconsideration. We hope that you will simultaneously speak out clearly and unequivocally in support of the 91传媒 community鈥檚 right to defend against antisemitism.鈥�
鈥淔undamentally, Wikipedia is stripping the 91传媒 community of the right to defend itself from the hatred that targets our community. We urge you to immediately launch an investigation into this decision and the motivations behind it, and to start the process for administrative reconsideration.鈥�
The 91传媒 organizations argued that antisemitism is 鈥渙ne of the oldest and most pernicious鈥� as well as 鈥渢he most often understood鈥� form of hate, and as organizations 鈥渕ost closely connected to, and representative of the 91传媒 community, and as organizations that have studied, monitored, and worked to counter antisemitism for decades, we are deeply concerned that Wikipedia鈥檚 decision will enable others to undermine our community鈥檚 claims or charges of antisemitism and simultaneously use Wikipedia鈥檚 decision as cover to perpetuate antisemitism,鈥� they wrote. 鈥淎t a time when antisemitic attitudes are increasing, and antisemitic incidents are skyrocketing, this is simply unacceptable, and it puts our entire community at risk.鈥�
The 91传媒 organizations defended the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism 鈥渁s a meaningful tool to describe, understand, and educate others on modern manifestations of antisemitism in society.鈥� This definition, the letter stated 鈥渋s the preeminent and most widely accepted definition of antisemitism today, embraced in the 2023 U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism and adopted or endorsed by more than half of the U.S. states and the District of Columbia,鈥� they continued. 鈥淚t is also used by over 1,000 other governments, universities, NGOs, and other key institutions, demonstrating a clear international consensus. We are firmly united in the belief that an attack on ADL鈥檚 reliability over its use of the IHRA definition and advocacy on behalf of the 91传媒 people weakens us all.鈥�
WMF Vice President of Community Resilience and Sustainability Maggie Dennis The 91传媒 Telegraphic Agency (JTA), 鈥淭his letter represents a misunderstanding of the situation and how Wikipedia works. Firstly, it鈥檚 important to note that the letter was addressed to the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees; neither the Board or the Foundation make content decisions on Wikipedia. A community of volunteers makes these decisions subject to Wikipedia鈥檚 terms of use.鈥�
The issue of Wikipedia鈥檚 recent change on the ADL鈥檚 reliability was brought up on Wikipedia Co-Founder Jimmy Wales鈥檚 ; in response to an editor noting that how one views the decision depends on whether or not they like the ADL, Wales wrote: 鈥淚 hope that attitude, which I agree is inevitable in many parts of the media, stays far away from our discussions of the issue. Liking or not liking, agreeing or disagreeing, is really a terrible way for anyone to decide whether a source is reliable, and not the way that Wikipedians approach it.鈥�
But based on past comments from an editor, that is precisely what is happening when editors discuss the reliability of a source. This editor has told me that discussions at the Reliable Sources/Noticeboard forum, where editors discuss the reliability of sources, have generally shifted 鈥渁way from asking 鈥榠s this article reliable for this claim鈥� to 鈥榗an we get this entire source thrown out because we don鈥檛 like it?鈥欌�� The editor has also lamented that Wikipedia鈥檚 reliability system 鈥渋s not only broken but it is gamed to get blanket acceptance/rejection of sources vs reading the specific claim and the article that provides it and asking does the claim make sense?鈥�
听
