Wikipedia editors decided to blacklist The Heritage Foundation’s website after a report came out that the conservative think tank is working on a plan to unmask various editors that the think tank believes are promulgating antisemitic content on Wikipedia.
The Forward reported in January that it had obtained documents purportedly outlining Heritage’s plan to “identify and target” the editors, which included the use of “facial recognition software and a database of hacked usernames and passwords in order to identify contributors to the online encyclopedia… The Heritage Foundation sent the pitch deck outlining the Wikipedia initiative to Jewish foundations and other prospective supporters of Project Esther, its roadmap for fighting antisemitism and anti-Zionism. ” A spokesperson for Heritage told The Forward that they couldn’t comment on the matter. Mike Howell, executive director of the think tank’s investigative arm, was in The New Yorker on March 4 that Heritage’s “investigation” of Wikipedia will be provided to “the appropriate policymakers to help inform a strategic response.”
In response to The Forward article, Wikipedia editors launched a discussion known as Request for Comment (RfC) on Jan. 8 how editors should treat the think tank’s reliability going forward. In RfCs, editors put in their “!votes” explaining their stated position on the best way to handle an issue in regards to site policy; a closer (an uninvolved Wikipedian in good standing) is often needed to render a verdict on the discussion based on the numbers and strength of the arguments presented. In this RfC, the closer, administrator “Dr vulpes,” concluded on Feb. 8 that there was consensus in favor of blacklisting the think tank; one editor explained to me that this means any links to Heritage’s website on Wikipedia will “be automatically flagged by an edit filter that will treat it like spam” and thus will be blocked from the site altogether.
“Although blacklisting is more often used to deal with spam or disruptive links it was noted that there is a possible risk to editors and the community by allowing such links to stay on the site,” Dr vulpes wrote. “As reported such links could be used to track users and editors which raised the option of blacklisting the Heritage Foundation. Several participants argued that blacklisting is the only sure way to block the direct use of heritage.org links in citations, which would prevent anyone from inadvertently clicking them. Many editors pointed out that blacklisting is not just a reliability decision but a security measure that is similar in nature to blacklisting malicious domains that track or harm our users.”
Dr vulpes also noted that myriad editors in the discussion had cited instances in which Heritage “has promoted false claims about election fraud and published unsupported scenarios about election interference. Academic sources like ‘Climate Change Counter Movement’ note Heritage Foundation’s pattern of misinterpreting evidence and promoting climate skepticism. The research cited by [another editor] shows Heritage has published disinformation about various policy matters including FDA regulations.”
The closer also noted that editors had pointed out in the discussion that blocking links to Heritage’s website would not necessarily prevent its views from discussed on Wikipedia, as any of the think tank’s views mentioned by third-party sources could be cited in articles.
“In conclusion, this discussion revolved around balancing Wikipedia’s need for reliable sources against protecting editors from a group whose published work is regarded as misleading and which appears willing to exploit links on Wikipedia to target those members of our community,” Dr vulpes added. “The pattern of misinformation, threat to our community, and the apparent ineffectiveness of lesser sanctions lead to a rough consensus that the Heritage Foundation should be blacklisted.”
One editor told me, “My understanding on decent reporting is that whatever people think is going on with Heritage pertaining to any potentially ‘wiki-illicit’ activities is mostly smoke. I do think that Heritage is interested in tackling whatis widely considered to be a serious bias and radical infiltration problem on Wiki. I do not think there was any serious intention to undertake phishing activities to expose editor identities (despite some boldly authored deck of unclear provenance appearing on the internet).” Regarding the decision to blacklist them from Wikipedia, the editor contended that “it is most definitely understandable in a manner of speaking, but shouldn’t have happened without actual evidence that Heritage was actually undertaking such activities. In the absence of actual evidence, this has only resulted in an erasure of materials by a conservative think tank, and these actions could be interpreted by many as a cover to erase non-liberal opinions from the website (which many have accused wiki of tolerating or encouraging).”
Another editor told me that the blacklist “is typically only reserved for really abusive sites” that are putting out “malware.” “So they’re not really using it for what it’s supposed to be used for,” the editor said, adding that they think editors are “basically singling out Heritage because of their public campaign and they’re being a little retaliatory and vengeful.”
The editor acknowledged that Heritage “kind of brought it on themselves” and that there probably aren’t too many instances in which Heritage is being used on Wikipedia anyway since it’s mainly considered a primary source and thus its use is “limited” on Wikipedia by nature. But, “it’s very unusual and definitely an exception to the established norms to blacklist them just because they said they wanted to doxx editors,” the editor added. “Admittedly that was a stupid thing for them to put into print… I don’t think they have a credible way to do it, but if that ever did cause anyone any harm then that would give them some liability… but it also wasn’t smart because they’re basically poking the bear.”
“It’s very unusual and definitely an exception to the established norms to blacklist them just because they said they wanted to doxx editors.” – Wikipedia editor
This editor would prefer that there be less usage of sources like Amnesty International, which is considered generally reliable on Wikipedia, first. The editor doesn’t think either Amnesty or Heritage should be used much on Wikipedia.
A different editor acknowledged that if The New Yorker “claims a specific person at Heritage basically confirmed this story (or at least some aspect of it) then yes, I guess that makes it true. Not sure if we have enough evidence to justify the blacklist but it still gives a lot of fuel to those who want to [blacklist] THF. This is something where I would love to know more about what is actually going on. My guess is this isn’t some sort of paid campaign, rather it’s like-minded people who feel they are ‘doing the right thing.’ … We certainly don’t react as negatively when sources like the SPLC [Southern Poverty Law Center] do something underhanded to ‘expose’ the other side.”
The editor further contended that they don’t like how editors are fine with citing the SPLC directly but not Heritage for things like their economic freedom index. “I think we shouldn’t directly cite either one,” the editor said. “I would only cite them when a RS [reliable source] discusses their views first. But the rules for sources we like are different than for those we don’t like.” This editor added that while the decision to blacklist Heritage won’t change “much day-to-day” on Wikipedia, it illustrates “just how biased many editors are and it will be seen as more evidence by those on the right that Wikipedia is biased while those on the left will see it as further proof that those on the right are all crazy and that Wikipedia needs to crack down on more of these dangerous right-wing sources. That’s probably bad all around.”
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.