‘ArbComm,’ Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee and the Misrepresentation of Religion and Religious Beliefs and Practices

“Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust,” a study by Dr. Jan Grabowksi and Dr. Shira Kline, published in the Journal of Holocaust Research volume 37 issue 2, reveals a systemic flaw in Wikipedia: Lack of factual reliability through dependence on “reliable sources” vs. accuracy. This, coupled with the lack of oversite of the Arbitration Committee—the corps of Wikipedia administrators and editors who have the final word on resolving controversies, setting policies, and determining what resources are or are not reliable—casts grave doubt on the platform’s accuracy, and denies those with legitimate concerns from correcting misinformation. This is particularly true of so-called controversial articles, which often include those related to religious beliefs and practices.

“Reliability” vs. Facts

We live in an age where Fake News is so common that the term has become part of the vernacular. (It is defined on the Cambridge Dictionary website as “false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet  or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke.”)

Yet once a news source has been deemed “reliable” by Wikipedia, editors may quote its assertions as though they were facts without any further research. This can taint the encyclopedia’s articles, particularly on controversial subjects.

Should Fact Checking Be Required in Wikipedia?

It must be to be considered accurate.

Encyclopedia Britannica guidelines detail the steps an article must go through before it is published and concludes, “The thoroughness of this process means that relatively few articles will meet Britannica’s standards—and those that do will be the object of deliberate, thoughtful, and engaged review by editors and, frequently, leading experts. This process can demand as much involvement by the article’s author as by the editors overseeing its publication.”

How Does Wikipedia Compare To These Standards?

The Grabowksi/Kline study, referred to in a previous article in this series, revealed a fatal flaw in the architecture of the online encyclopedia.

Grabowski and Kline examined 25 public-facing Wikipedia articles and nearly 300 Wikipedia back pages, including talk pages, noticeboards, and arbitration cases. They revealed how a handful of editors steered the historical narrative away from evidence-driven research toward a skewed version of the history of antisemitism in Poland. This was possible because as long as the data in a Wikipedia article is from a “reliable source,” it may not be challenged on the basis of accuracy.

“What our study found is that these Wikipedians operate at the edges of what Wikipedia defines as permissible,” explains Klein. “They abuse the system by contesting the definition of reliable research. They spend hours legitimizing non-academic sources and fringe authors and discrediting trustworthy historians. As a result, when administrators and uninvolved editors arrive to settle a conflict, they have a hard time telling right from wrong.”

Arbitration

Wikipedia ArbComm agreed to look into the study’s claims, but the result did not remedy the situation.

In a 2023 article published on the Chapman University website, Klein discusses the ruling of Wikipedia’s arbitration committee in response to the study.

The committee’s verdict was anticipated to determine whether or not Wikipedians are willing to fight disinformation. However, the ruling missed the mark entirely by failing to confront the falsification of history, says Klein.

“Indeed, this problem should concern every human on the planet. This is the seventh most viewed site in the world, yet the safeguards Wikipedia has in place for battling disinformation are scarily ineffective …If the history of the Holocaust is permitted to be distorted, the same is probably true for other cases we have yet to discover. With ChatGPT amplifying Wikipedia on an unprecedented scale, this new failure is all the more worrying.”

ArbComm’s Decision Was Disappointing.

“The ruling bans two distortionist editors from the topic area,” said Klein, “but the ruling is appealable in 12 months. The proposed remedies lack depth and consequence…

“By ignoring the egregiously false content our article flagged for them, and focusing only on editors’ conduct (e.g. uncivil language), Wikipedia has once again failed, and miserably so… The arbitrators have done nothing about source misrepresentation, or about using fringe sources, which are the crux of the problem. So the message of this case is, there’s no problem with falsifying the past; just be nice about it. This has tragic results: they have just banned an editor who had brought in trustworthy scholarship, and let another editor go free who has authored blatantly antisemitic content.”

Oversight and Accountability

Is there any recourse to a negative ruling of ArbComm? Apparently not.

When Wikipedia editors voted in June 2024 to add the Anti-Defamation League to a list of banned and partially banned sources over the organization’s stand on the Palestinian conflict. Jewish groups, outraged by this decision, appealed to the Board of the Wikimedia Foundation to take action to reverse this decision.

The Foundation’s answer, relayed by Maggie Dennis, vice president of community resilience and sustainability, was that “neither the Board or the Foundation make content decisions on Wikipedia. A community of volunteers makes these decisions subject to Wikipedia’s terms of use.”

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across something in this area, we encourage you to contact us at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights and expertise are very valuable in ensuring that accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.