Wikipedia drew criticism from Jewish leaders after the site’s editors opted to freeze discussion about the title of a page that refers to Israel committing a “massacre” in June 2024.
The decision means that no one can even discuss changing the title of the page “Nuseirat rescue and massacre” until at least August 2026. The page refers to the Jewish state’s liberation of the four hostages—Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv—from Gaza.
Citing “Palestinian health officials,” the Wikipedia page claims that “at least” 276 Palestinians were killed during the operation. It also says that the Israeli military recorded fewer than 100 Palestinian deaths. The Israeli media article Wikipedia cites notes that there were terrorists among the Palestinian deaths, but the encyclopedia’s page doesn’t say that.
At least as of Oct. 2, the Wikipedia page calling it a “massacre” stated that it was redirected from a page called “2024 Nuseirat rescue operation,” per an archived version of the page. Wikipedia reportedly had that page and one on “Nuseirat refugee camp massacre” as of June 18, 2024.
After some efforts were made to change the title of the current page, Wikipedia editors proposed a moratorium on changes on July 26 and put the ban in place on Dec. 8, to last until Aug. 3.
“Wikipedia, once again, seems to be misleading its readers,” Daniel S. Mariaschin, CEO of B’nai B’rith International, told JNS.
“The Nuseirat matter tells us two things about the war in Gaza,” he said. “We learned, early on, that any figures issued by the Hamas-led ‘Gaza Health Ministry’ were always highly inflated and not credible.”
Mariaschin added that Israeli hostages “being held by Palestinian civilians in apartment buildings speaks clearly to Hamas’s policy of surrounding itself, or those connected to it, with human shields.”
“The real story here should be that kidnapped Israelis were being held hostage and were successfully rescued,” he told JNS.
Vlad Khaykin, executive vice president of social impact and North American partnerships at the Simon Wiesenthal Center, told JNS that Wikipedia’s use of the word “massacre” in the title is “not a neutral descriptor.”
“It is a verdict—one that draws its authority from casualty figures and claims that remain deeply contested, often circulated by those intent on recasting Israel’s efforts at self-defense as acts of villainy,” he said.
“To enshrine such a term in a headline, absent the slow work of context and verification, is not an act of impartiality,” Khaykin told JNS. “It is the quiet rewriting of the story before the facts have even settled.”
‘Moratorium on truth’
Earlier this year, Wikipedia editors placed another moratorium on discussion on a different page—a dramatic measure that it tends to take rarely. It says that such a decision “should be used with caution,” since it runs “counter to the general practice on Wikipedia that any editor may initiate a discussion on any topic related to the operations of the encyclopedia at any time.”
On Feb. 21, editors reportedly placed a year-long ban on discussions to change the line “Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible” in the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article on “Zionism.”
“Since when do relied-upon sources of information online place a moratorium on the truth?” Mariaschin told JNS. “The treatment of the story of the Jews’ return to their ancient homeland is not just given short shrift. It is given a fabricated treatment of history that is both biased and dangerous.”
“One can only imagine how many people searching for the facts will walk away with an intentionally false narrative,” he said.
Khaykin told JNS that the moratorium on the Zionism page “locked in a one-sided version of history.”
In January, Wikipedia’s arbitration committee banned eight editors from editing Arab-Israeli articles indefinitely. Six of the eight are anti-Israel. They can appeal their suspensions after one year.
“This is not a simple quarrel among volunteers,” Khaykin told JNS. “It is a case study in how determined actors can quietly seize the levers of an open system, rewriting reality while the world looks away.”
A JNS review found that moratoria have only been implemented a handful of times this year, including efforts to rename the article on the Gulf of Mexico, which U.S. President Donald Trump calls the “Gulf of America,” and discussions about the gender of an Algerian boxer. (JNS sought comment from the Wikimedia Foundation.)
In February 2024, a moratorium paused discussion for three months on efforts to rename an article then titled “Israel-Hamas war.” The title of the page was changed to “Gaza war” in January. A moratorium proposal to freeze discussion on changing the title of the “Gaza genocide” page failed in August 2024.
The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating Wikipedia over concerns of “potentially systematic efforts to advance antisemitic and anti-Israel information in Wikipedia articles related to conflicts with the State of Israel.”
Holly Huffnagle, U.S. director of antisemitism policy for the American Jewish Committee, told JNS that “coordinated and manipulated Wikipedia editing campaigns are dangerous and something that the Wikimedia Foundation must take seriously.”
“These campaigns have the power to distort the public record, exploiting the trust people place in an open encyclopedia to push narratives crafted for hidden agendas,” she said. “Because Wikipedia is so widely cited, including by AI chatbots, even subtle, organized manipulations can change public opinion, shape news coverage and conceal the truth.”
“Procedures and policy must reflect and address these concerns,” she said.
Khaykin told JNS that Wikipedia “now serves as a foundational layer of the global information ecosystem.”
“Its content feeds directly into Google search results and informs Alexa and Siri responses,” he said. “Increasingly, it influences AI platforms like ChatGPT. When Wikipedia’s neutrality is compromised at the source, that distortion spreads.”
“Downstream tools then shape how students, journalists, policymakers and the public understand complex issues,” Khaykin told JNS.
Wikipedia “allows a small group to dictate what the world is permitted to know, then those who build our digital commons must ask themselves whether such a platform deserves its place of trust,” he added. “A source so easily captured should not be allowed to shape historical perspective or the truths we pass on to the next generation.” JNS
{Matzav.com}
