Wikipedia designates the leading Jewish civil rights organization as an untrustworthy source.
A collective of volunteer moderators for a globally renowned data platform recently cast a vote to categorize the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a "generally questionable" source in relation to the Israel-Palestine dispute. This label suggests avoiding frequent citations of the ADL in articles on this topic, except under exceptional circumstances. Other questionable sources, according to the moderators, include Russian state media, Fox News' political coverage, and Amazon reviews.
The ADL is also up for a vote by the same moderators to potentially be labeled as unreliable in discussions about antisemitism. While the majority of moderators support this label, they continue to deliberate, as this decision could potentially diminish the credibility of the ADL, a key authority on antisemitism research and information.
Moderators claimed that the ADL's dual role as an advocacy and research organization impedes its ability to deliver neutral accounts on Israel or antisemitism. A moderator with the username Loki, who has edited over 3000 articles, commented, "The ADL is significantly biased towards Israel/Palestine, often acting as a pro-Israel lobbying group. This prejudice can and does impact its ability to accurately represent facts about individuals or organizations that disagree with it on this issue, particularly non-Zionist or anti-Zionist Jewish groups and organizations."
A minority of moderators challenged this view, asserting that the moderators casting their votes failed to present evidence demonstrating that the ADL has made false claims due to its advocacy work.
The ADL vehemently criticized the decision. "It's alarming that the numerous moderators who flagged the glaring flaws and inaccuracies in the premise and sources used in this campaign to discredit the ADL are being disregarded," an ADL spokesperson stated. "They have provided rebuttals supported by factual evidence to every claim made, but it seems facts no longer matter."
The ADL described the decision as "a disappointing development for research and education" and "damaging for the Jewish community and society." The spokesperson cautioned that Wikipedia's actions would hinder the dissemination of information on antisemitism to the public.
The ADL navigating a shifting world
Before Hamas launched its deadly attack on Israel on October 7, the ADL was primarily focused on educating about and advocating for action against the increasing instances of antisemitism worldwide. These disturbing trends included (and continue to include) a growing number of threats and anti-Jewish actions from White supremacist groups, with ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt frequently appearing on television news, like CNN.
Following the events of October 7 and the ensuing conflict, the ADL generated numerous reports documenting rising antisemitic hate speech and incidents, particularly on college campuses. It released two report cards evaluating universities' efforts to safeguard Jewish students, granting failing grades to over a dozen institutions.
However, the ADL received some criticism for adopting a broad definition of antisemitism that encompassed anti-Zionism and certain anti-Israel speech and actions.
"ADL's leadership has taken a more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism," said James Loeffler, a professor of modern Jewish history at Johns Hopkins University. "It's evident from reading the moderators' conversation that they are heavily influenced by the ADL leadership's comments."
Greenblatt and the ADL made it clear that political opposition to Israel's government and policies was permissible and not antisemitic. However, those who denied Jews the right to self-determination and freedom in their homeland were antisemitic, according to the ADL.
"Let's make this absolutely clear: Anti-Zionism is antisemitism," Greenblatt stated at an ADL "State of Hate" event in March. "Anti-Zionism is a denial of Jewish history, a denial of Jewish humanity."
This stance was met with disapproval by the moderators. For instance, a moderator with the username Sameboat argued, "The ADL's advocacy demonstrates its skewed views and manipulative presentation on the IP (Israel-Palestine) topic and, thus, [is] highly unreliable."
Balancing advocacy with trustworthy information
The ADL has amassed expertise in tracking antisemitic threats and hate groups and has provided valuable data and information about antisemitism to the world, particularly since few organizations are engaged in this kind of research, noted Loeffler. However, the balancing act between advocacy and research has been a long-standing issue for the organization.
Wikipedia's decision might signify a changing landscape that the ADL needs to address. The ongoing conflict in Gaza has created deep divisions among people of various backgrounds, including Jews. This conflict has added complexity and ambiguity to the global understanding of the Israel-Palestine dispute.
If Wikipedia's moderators are distancing themselves from the ADL, this could prompt other media, academic, and partnering advocacy organizations to reconsider their use of ADL data while informing their audiences on antisemitism.
"The challenge for the ADL is to separate the advocacy from the data when communicating their message," Loeffler said. "I believe this will present a difficult blow to the credibility of the ADL in its role on this issue. The staff there will undoubtedly continue to do meticulous work, but this will offer an opportunity for self-evaluation."
Read also:
The ADL's stance on conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism has influenced the views of Wikipedia's moderators, leading some to view the organization's reports on Israel-Palestine as biased and unreliable. This perception could potentially impact the way other media outlets and academic institutions utilize ADL data when discussing antisemitism.
In the business world, Amazon's customer reviews have also been labeled as questionable sources by some, indicating a growing trend of scrutiny towards online platforms' reliability in providing unbiased information.
