Wikipedia editors have decided to declare one of the leading human rights organizations in the United States, the Anti-Defamation League, as an "unreliable source" whose data cannot be relied upon when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a report published overnight between Wednesday and Thursday revealed.
The Jewish organization is one of the most prominent and well-known in terms of protecting and supporting the rights of Jewish citizens in particular and minorities in general in the US, and it constantly fights to ensure the security of American Jews and to stop the rising antisemitism in the country.
Wikipedia editors' decision to categorize the Anti-Defamation League as "a source that is generally unreliable" means that from now on, it will not be possible to quote data or statements from the ADL in articles posted on Wikipedia, except in exceptional cases. Thus, the organization joins a list alongside state-owned media outlets in Russia, Fox's political coverage, and Amazon reviews, all defined as "unreliable sources" on Wikipedia.
In another absurd move, Wikipedia editors are now facing a vote regarding labeling the Anti-Defamation League as an unreliable source on the subject of antisemitism. If the decision is ultimately made, it could severely damage the credibility of the ADL as the world's leading organization for researching antisemitism.
In an online forum held on the topic, Wikipedia editors defended the decision, arguing that the dual role played by the ADL – on the one hand as a research body and on the other as an organization engaging in pro-Israel advocacy – prevents it from providing unbiased reports on Israel and antisemitism.
"The organization is very biased toward Israel, to the point that it often acts as a pro-Israel lobbying organization," one editor known under the name "Loki," who has edited over 3,000 articles on Wikipedia, wrote. "This impairs its ability to accurately report facts about people and organizations that disagree with it on this issue, especially non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jews," according to him.
Despite these statements, the few editors who opposed the decision argued that they were not provided with any proof or reliable evidence that the Anti-Defamation League made false claims as a result of its advocacy work for Israel or that the data it provided was unreliable and/or inaccurate.
ADL strongly denounced the decision. In a written statement, the group said the decision was the result of a "campaign to delegitimize the ADL" and that editors opposing the ban "provided point-by-point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently, facts no longer matter."
