It’s time to correct Wikipedia’s dangerous anti-Israel bias - opinion

Wikipedia prides itself as a “free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality” available to “every single person on the planet in their own language.” Its reach as the world’s “largest and most-read reference work in history” is unprecedented, fielding 4 billion global visitors monthly.

In Wikipedia’s case, while free and popular might not guarantee quality, it surely will have a negative and dangerous impact on public discourse surrounding Israel and Middle East terrorism.

In recent years, Wikipedia’s shortfalls have become apparent through its intensifying anti-Israel biases, evidenced by its shameless anti-Israel activism, efforts to erase Israeli identity, and discrepancies that seemingly whitewash anti-Israel terrorism. As Wikipedia bears the ability to significantly influence public discourse and global affairs, now more than ever, it’s time to demand that the online encyclopedia restores its guidelines, including its obligation to report “from a neutral point of view… without editorial bias.”

Wikipedia’s Arabic portal clearly indicates the website’s anti-Israel leanings. For example, a search for Frank Sinatra – or any subject in general – in Arabic will reveal an entry page, headed by Wikipedia’s logo draped in Palestinian colors, and a statement that falsely accuses Israel of genocide and expresses the organization’s “solidarity with the right of the Palestinian people.” In so doing, Wikipedia seeks to preempt and scapegoat the Jewish state for its current self-defense campaign against Hamas, which unilaterally invaded Israel and killed 1,200 innocent people on October 7, 2023 and took 250 hostage.

Wikipedia has also actively promoted erasure of Israeli identity. In July 2024, Hezbollah killed 12 Druze children playing soccer in the Golan Heights. On its entry page documenting the incident, Wikipedia referred to the victims simply as “Syrian children,” despite a 2020 poll revealing that “61 percent of Israeli Druze” feel “very much” like “real Israeli[s].” Wikipedia’s mischaracterization seemingly sought to downplay Israel’s multi-pluralism and the possibility that Israelis could actually be the victim of Middle East terrorism.

A clear double standard

Additionally, Wikipedia has sought to whitewash the terrorism of anti-Israel groups. When it comes to US-designated terrorist groups that are not foremostly focused on Israel’s destruction – such as Al Qaeda, Lashkar-E-Taiba, FARC, ISIS, or the PKK – it usually takes Wikipedia no more than two paragraphs (usually just one) to highlight that these entities engage in terrorism or are designated as terrorist groups. But when it comes to the entry pages for terrorist groups that clearly prioritize Israel’s destruction – such as Hamas and Hezbollah – Wikipedia only first makes mention of the word “terror” or “terrorism” after four and 31 paragraphs, respectively.

A clear double standard exists, whereby for anti-Israel terrorists, Wikipedia frequently buries the devils in the details and places the burden on readers to find them. Through this tactic, the site seemingly wants to make it difficult for readers to similarly diagnose Hamas and Hezbollah as they would other terrorist groups. After all, according to Forbes, “website users dedicate 5.59 seconds to reading written content on a site.”

This disparity similarly manifests in terms of how Wikipedia discusses Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists, and those from other organizations. Whereas Wikipedia makes sure to explicitly refer to Al Qaeda’s Bin Laden and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed’s terrorist activities in the first paragraph of their respective entries, when it comes to Hamas’s late leader Ismail Haniyeh, or Hezbollah’s late chief Hassan Nasrallah, it takes roughly twenty paragraphs before the word “terrorist” is even mentioned. For Hamas’s Yahya Sinwar – the mastermind behind the October 7 terrorist attack, one of the deadliest in the 21st century – it takes four paragraphs.

Discrepancies occasionally also manifest within Wikipedia itself, especially when going between its English and Arabic portals. For example, whereas its English portal entry of Ismail Haniyeh does eventually make mention of his designation as a terrorist, Wikipedia’s corresponding Arabic portal entirely omits any mention of the word “terror,” “terrorism,” or “terrorist.” It is questionable whether this omission was intentionally designed by Wikipedia to present Haniyeh differently to different audiences.

Wikipedia’s many expressed double standards are no coincidence and will surely incite anti-Israel sentiment and sympathies for anti-Israel terrorists. The popular online encyclopedia must exercise much better discretion to prevent biased editors with seniority from continuously promoting one-sided political agendas and excluding corrections from more objective editors. Time is of the essence, and Wikipedia’s credibility remains at stake.

The writer is an attorney and the director of policy education at Stand With Us, an international nonpartisan education organization that supports Israel and fights antisemitism.