{"id":163233,"date":"2020-06-22T12:01:16","date_gmt":"2020-06-22T11:01:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=163233"},"modified":"2020-06-20T09:52:55","modified_gmt":"2020-06-20T08:52:55","slug":"on-wikipedia-as-a-disinformation-operation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2020\/06\/on-wikipedia-as-a-disinformation-operation\/","title":{"rendered":"On Wikipedia as a Disinformation Operation"},"content":{"rendered":"

June 2020 – In March 2020, SPR published a widely read analysis on Wikipedia as a disinformation operation<\/a>, covering 15 years of research by leading Wikipedia analysts on corporate, political and intelligence influence on the supposedly \u201cfree\u201d online encyclopedia.<\/em><\/p>\n

We now have added the instructive fact that the current Wikimedia Foundation executive director previously worked at the US Council on Foreign Relations<\/a> (CFR) as well as at a subgroup of the US National Endowment for Democracy<\/a> (NED), a US soft power organization involved in international information operations and regime change campaigns.<\/em><\/p>\n

Needless to say, in the era of Covid-19<\/a>, Wikipedia once again plays a key role in disseminating the officially sanctioned narrative, defending pharmaceutical interests, and attacking critics.<\/em><\/p>\n

–Original–<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/h3>\n

Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation?<\/h2>\n

Wikipedia is generally thought of as an open, transparent, and mostly reliable online encyclopedia. Yet upon closer inspection, this turns out not to be the case.<\/p>\n

In fact, the English Wikipedia with its 9 billion<\/a> worldwide page views per month is governed<\/a> by just 500 active administrators, whose real identity in many cases remains unknown.<\/p>\n

Moreover, studies have shown that 80% of all Wikipedia content is written<\/a> by just 1% of all Wikipedia editors, which again amounts to just a few hundred mostly unknown people.<\/p>\n

Obviously, such a non-transparent and hierarchical structure is susceptible to corruption and manipulation, the notorious \u201cpaid editors\u201d<\/a> hired by corporations being just one example.<\/p>\n

Indeed, already in 2007, researchers found that CIA and FBI employees were editing<\/a> Wikipedia articles on controversial topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo military prison.<\/p>\n

Also in 2007, researchers found that one of the most active and influential English Wikipedia administrators, called \u201cSlim Virgin\u201d, was in fact a former British intelligence informer<\/a>.<\/p>\n

More recently, another highly prolific Wikipedia editor going by the name of \u201cPhilip Cross\u201d<\/a> turned out to be linked to UK intelligence as well as several mainstream media journalists<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In Germany, one of the most aggressive Wikipedia editors was exposed<\/a>, after a two-year legal battle, as a political operative formerly serving in the Israeli army as a foreign volunteer.<\/p>\n

Even in Switzerland, unidentified government employees were caught whitewashing Wikipedia entries<\/a> about the Swiss secret service just prior to a public referendum about the agency.<\/p>\n

Many of these Wikipedia personae are editing articles almost all day and every day, indicating<\/a> that they are either highly dedicated individuals, or in fact, operated by a group of people.<\/p>\n

In addition, articles edited by these personae cannot easily be revised, since the above-mentioned administrators<\/a> can always revert changes or simply block disagreeing users altogether.<\/p>\n

The primary goal of these covert campaigns appears to be<\/a> pushing Western and Israeli government<\/a> positions while destroying the reputation of independent journalists and politicians.<\/p>\n

Articles most affected by this kind of manipulation include political, geopolitical and certain historical topics as well as biographies of non-conformist academics, journalists, and politicians.<\/p>\n

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, a friend<\/a> of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and a \u201cYoung Leader\u201d<\/a> of the Davos forum, has repeatedly defended<\/a> these operations.<\/p>\n

Speaking of Davos, Wikimedia has itself amassed a fortune<\/a> of more than $160 million, donated in large part not by lazy students, but by major US corporations<\/a> and influential foundations<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The current Wikimedia CEO, Katherine Maher, previously worked at<\/a> the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR<\/a>) as well as at a subgroup of the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Moreover, US social media and video platforms are increasingly referring<\/a> to Wikipedia to frame or combat \u201ccontroversial\u201d topics. The revelations discussed above may perhaps help explain why.<\/p>\n

Already NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed<\/a> how spooks manipulate online debates, and more recently, a senior Twitter executive turned out<\/a> to be a British Army \u201cpsyops\u201d officer.<\/p>\n

To add at least some degree of transparency, German researchers have developed a free web browser tool called WikiWho<\/a> that lets readers color code just who edited what in Wikipedia.<\/p>\n

In many cases, the result looks as discomforting as one might expect.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

WikiWho \/ WhoColor<\/p><\/div>\n

Additional References:<\/strong><\/h3>\n