Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is at the centre of a “huge scandal” after intervening in the online encyclopaedia’s page on Israel’s genocide in Gaza to soften its assertion that Israel is, indeed, committing genocide – a conclusion that aligns with the findings of the United Nations, World Court, human rights groups and genocide experts.
Wikipedia: sorry – but kind of not
And it seems that the site’s parent foundation is attempting to distance itself from his position in response to what may be an exodus of donors disgusted at Wales’s continued siding with the genocidal, apartheid colony.
In an email seen by Skwawkbox, a ‘Senior Donor Relations Specialist’ – presumably following an approved script – responded to a now-ex donor who ended his financial support for the platform “in disgust” at Wales’s pro-Israel stance by emphasising Wales’s lack of official role in the organisation (emphases added):
Thank you for your email and per your request, I’ve unsubscribed you from our fundraising mailings.
I truly apologize to hear you have found a comment or statement of Jimmy Wales’ objectionable. While Jimmy is the founder of Wikipedia, he is neither a paid employee nor an executive of the Wikimedia Foundation, and his opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Even as the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy is one of hundreds of thousands of editors, all striving to present information, including on contentious topics, in line with Wikipedia’s policies.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia written by hundreds of thousands of volunteer editors who share information from reliable sources. No single person can determine what appears on Wikipedia. By design, its content is shaped through diversity of viewpoints and a process of open, collaborative discussion, debate, and consensus by its community of volunteer editors. Every edit, comment, and citation is recorded transparently for anyone to see. Articles on Wikipedia are updated as new information emerges and must follow three core policies, which require all content to be fact-based, neutral, and attributed to reliable sources. The aim is always to provide a well-rounded view on a range of topics for readers. Wikipedia is unique because it is a perpetual work in progress as a living encyclopedia: this means that content can evolve based on dialogue, feedback, and discussion in line with Wikipedia’s policies. This sometimes messy, very human process makes the quality of the encyclopedia stronger.
Anyone who thinks articles can be improved is encouraged to participate in improving them; please see the tutorial to learn how you can contribute to Wikipedia directly. If you would prefer to just voice your concerns for the community to review, this input from readers is welcomed by the volunteers, too. Each article has a discussion page that can be edited with notes about the article. Please see the “Talk page” section of the Tutorial above.
If you would like to call Jimmy’s attention to your concerns, you can even raise the issue on his own user talk page where he frequently responds to questions and concerns from Wikipedia readers.
Thank you again for your generosity and your investment in the Wikimedia Foundation’s integrity. We hope you continue to stay involved in these conversations on Wikipedia, and that you will find the plurality of viewpoints expressed by volunteers — even that of the founder himself — ultimately contributes to the creation of a balanced encyclopedia, one respectful to all viewpoints and never reflective of those of a single individual.
For more information about how Wikipedia works, you can visit our website and new blog series.
A logical fallacy
The email, however, echoes the same logical fallacy as Wales’ original intervention by referencing Wikipedia’s ‘core policy’ of being ‘neutral’, as if a neutral person cannot conclude based on overwhelming evidence that Israel is (of course) committing genocide against the Palestinian people in Gaza. The fallacy is reminiscent of the BBC’s insistence that it is ‘balanced’ – which it appears to apply as meaning it has to treat the view of someone who denies it’s raining as equal in value and significance even though it’s clearly raining in torrents outside.
More interesting is the inference that Wikipedia may be haemorrhaging donations, given that it is responding to an individual, and presumably relatively minor, donor with a personal message trying to change his/her mind.
