The letter from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)implicating Wikipedia of left-wing predisposition appears to be based upon basic misconceptions of how the platform works, according to an attorney for the not-for-profit structure that runs the online encyclopedia.

“The foundation is very much taking the approach that Wikipedia is actually pretty great and a lot of what’s in this letter is actually misunderstandings,” Jacob Rogers, associate basic counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation, informed Ars in an interview. “And so we are more than happy, despite the pressure that comes from these things, to help people better understand how Wikipedia works.”

Cruz’s letter to Wikimedia Foundation CEO Maryana Iskander revealed issue “about ideological bias on the Wikipedia platform and at the Wikimedia Foundation.” Cruz declared that Wikipedia posts “often reflect a left-wing bias.” He asked the structure for “documents sufficient to show what supervision, oversight, or influence, if any, the Wikimedia Foundation has over the editing community,” and “documents sufficient to show how the Wikimedia Foundation addresses political or ideological bias.”

As many individuals understand, Wikipedia is modified by volunteers through a collective procedure.

“We’re not deciding what the editorial policies are for what is on Wikipedia,” Rogers stated, explaining the Wikimedia Foundation’s hands-off method. “All of that, both the writing of the content and the determining of the editorial policies, is done through the volunteer editors” through “public conversation and discussion and trying to come to a consensus. They make all of that visible in various ways to the reader. So you go and you read a Wikipedia article, you can see what the sources are, what someone has written, you can follow the links yourselves.”

“They’re fretted about something that is simply not provide at all”

Cruz’s letter raised issues about “the influence of large donors on Wikipedia’s content creation or editing practices.” Rogers stated that “people who donate to Wikipedia don’t have any influence over content and we don’t even have that many large donors to begin with. It is primarily funded by people donating through the website fundraisers, so I think they’re worried about something that is just not present at all.”

Anybody dissatisfied with Wikipedia material can take part in the writing and modifying, he stated. “It’s still open for everybody to participate. If someone doesn’t like what it says, they can go on and say, ‘Hey, I don’t like the sources that are being used, or I think a different source should be used that isn’t there,'” Rogers stated. “Other people might disagree with them, but they can have that conversation and try to figure it out and make it better.”

Rogers stated that some individuals mistakenly presume there is main control over Wikipedia modifying. “I feel like people are asking questions assuming that there is something more central that is controlling all of this that doesn’t actually exist,” he stated. “I would love to see it a little better understood about how this sort of public model works and the fact that people can come judge it for themselves and participate for themselves. And maybe that will have it sort of die down as a source of government pressure, government questioning, and go onto something else.”

Cruz’s letter implicated Wikipedia of pressing antisemitic stories. He explained the Wikimedia Foundation as “intervening in editorial decisions” in an obvious recommendation to an event in which the platform’s Arbitration Committee reacted to modifying disputes on the Israeli– Palestinian dispute by prohibiting 8 editors.

“The Wikimedia Foundation has said it is taking steps to combat this editing campaign, raising further questions about the extent to which it is intervening in editorial decisions and to what end,” Cruz composed.

Discussing the Arbitration Committee

The Arbitration Committee for the English-language edition of Wikipedia includes volunteers who “are elected by the rest of the English Wikipedia editors,” Rogers stated. The group is a “dispute resolution body when people can’t otherwise resolve their disputes.” The committee made “a ruling on Israel/Palestine because it is such a controversial subject and it’s not just banning eight editors, it’s also how contributions are made in that topic area and sort of limiting it to more experienced editors,” he stated.

The members of the committee “do not control content,” Rogers stated. “The arbitration committee is not a content dispute body. They’re like a behavior conduct dispute body, but they try to set things up so that fights will not break out subsequently.”

Just like other subjects, individuals can take part if they think short articles are antisemitic. “That is sort of squarely in the user editorial processes,” Rogers stated. “If someone thinks that something on Wikipedia is antisemitic, they should change it or propose to people working on it that they change it or change sources. I do think the editorial community, especially on topics related to antisemitism and related to Israel/Palestine, has a lot of various safeguards in place. That particular topic is probably the most controversial topic in the world, but there’s still a lot of editorial safeguards in place where people can discuss things. They can get help with dispute resolution from bringing in other editors if there’s a behavioral problem, they can ask for help from Wikipedia administrators, and all the way up to the English Wikipedia arbitration committee.”

Cruz’s letter called out Wikipedia’s objective of “knowledge equity,” and implicated the structure of preferring “ideology over neutrality.” Cruz likewise indicated a Daily Caller report that the structure contributed “to activist groups seeking to bring the online encyclopedia more in line with traditionally left-of-center points of view.”

Rogers countered that “the theory behind that is sort of misunderstood by the letter where it’s not about equity like the DEI equity, it is about the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation to have the world’s knowledge, to prepare educational content and to have all the different knowledge in the world to the extent possible.” In subject locations where individuals with proficiency have not contributed much to Wikipedia, “we are looking to write grants to help fill in those gaps in knowledge and have a more broad range of information and sources,” he stated.

What occurs next

Rogers recognizes with the functions of Senate examinations from individual experience. He signed up with the Wikimedia Foundation in 2014 after working for the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations under the late Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

While Cruz required a chest of files, Rogers stated the structure does not always need to offer them. A subpoena might be provided to Wikimedia, however that hasn’t taken place.

“What Cruz has sent us is just a letter,” Rogers stated. “There is no legal proceeding whatsoever. There’s no formal authority behind this letter. It’s just a letter from a person in the legislative branch who cares about the topic, so there is nothing compelling us to give him anything. I think we are probably going to answer the letter, but there’s no sort of legal requirement to actually fully provide everything that answers every question.” Presuming it reacts, the structure would attempt to address Cruz’s concerns “to the extent that we can, and without violating any of our company policies,” and without offering nonpublic info, he stated.

A letter reacting to Cruz would not always be revealed. In April, the structure got a letter from 23 legislators about supposed antisemitism and anti-Israel predisposition. The structure’s action to that letter is not public.

Cruz is looking for modifications at Wikipedia simply a couple weeks after slamming Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr for threatening ABC with station license cancellations over political material on Jimmy Kimmel’s program. While the pressure methods utilized by Cruz and Carr have resemblances, Rogers stated there are likewise essential distinctions in between the legal and executive branches.

“Congressional committees, they are investigating something to determine what laws to make, and so they have a little bit more freedom to just look into the state of the world to try to decide what laws they want to write or what laws they want to change,” he stated. “That doesn’t mean that they can’t use their authority in a way that might ultimately go down a path of violating the First Amendment or something like that. They have a little bit more runway to get there versus an executive branch agency which, if it is pressuring someone, it is doing so for a very immediate decision usually.”

110 Comments