Wikipedia now labels the top Jewish civil rights group as an unreliable source
CNN
Wikipedia’s editors recommended that the Anti-Defamation League should not be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Wikipedia’s editors declared that the Anti-Defamation League cannot be trusted to give reliable information on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and they overwhelmingly said the ADL is an unreliable source on antisemitism. It’s 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. The editors, a group of volunteer moderators for one of the world’s most popular information websites, voted last week to label the ADL as a “generally unreliable” source on the Israel-Palestine conflict. That means that the ADL should usually not be cited in Wikipedia articles on that topic except for extraordinary circumstances. Other generally unreliable sources, according to Wikipedia editors, include Russian state media, Fox News’ political coverage and Amazon reviews. The ADL also faces a vote from Wikipedia editors to potentially label the organization as unreliable on the topic of antisemitism. The editors overwhelmingly support that label but continue to debate the decision, which could ultimately deal a blow to the credibility of the leading source of research and information on antisemitism. JTA was first to report the vote. The Wikipedia editors said in an online forum that the ADL’s dual role as an advocacy and research organization prevented it from providing unbiased accounts on Israel or antisemitism. “The ADL is heavily biased regarding Israel/Palestine to the point of often acting as a pro-Israel lobbying organization,” wrote an editor with the username Loki, who has edited more than 3,000 Wikipedia articles. “This can and does compromise its ability to accurately report facts regarding people and organizations that disagree with it on this issue, especially non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews and Jewish organizations.” A minority of editors disagreed, arguing the editors voting in favor failed to provide evidence that the ADL has made false claims because of its advocacy work.