Wikimedia Forum

← Discussion pages

Wikimedia Forums

Archives →

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Wikipedians don't trust the interwiki community anymore?

I hope I found an appropriate page to discuss a growing issue I noticed quite a lot, especially in German Wikipedia. German Wikipedia acts as being totally isolated from the international community and other language versions of Wikipedia and assumes all except themselves are totally unreliable. Even the sources have to be from scholars born in their country, otherwise they cannot be trusted. This is knowledge nationalism! Which is insane because knowledge is universal.

Here is an example:

There was an attempt to create a similar article to en:gaza genocide in german wikipedia: de:Völkermord-Vorwürfe gegen Israel (Gazakrieg 2023–2024). It was just a word by word translation by user User:Babel fish.

And here is what happened: The article is nominated for deletion and almost all editors currently vote for deletion. The justification reads like this: the article uses mainly Anglo-American sources. They are not reliable and tendentious, if not antisemitic. The article will only be reliable, German wikipedians claim, if it is sourced on German scholars. Can you believe this?

There is no trust in the groundwork done by English Wikipedia, the hard work done by their English Wikipedia fellows is worth nothing to them.

Why can't wikipedians from different language version work together as one team, and appreciate each others hard work?

How can we foster knowledge exchange across borders and teach respect for knowledge written by scholars of a different country? Laitonix (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Individual Wikipedias are editorially independent. If the German Wikipedia wants not to trust certain sources, then it's their loss and there's nothing anyone outside the German Wikipedia can do about it. Meta only intervenes in exceptional circumstances which this isn't. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 02:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I think in general, Wikimedia Foundation could try to foster the exchange between wikipedians e.g. with international meetups (and funding travel costs), try to build connections across language borders. At the moment, there are none. At least I can tell you this from German Wikipedia. They don't learn from each other. If Wikimedia Foundation with all its funding should have one job, then to unite different fragmented, local groups to leverage the combined "wisdom of the crowd".

In this specific case, you could even raise the question at which point German Wikipedia becomes complicit in a genocide. Not by purpose but by ignorance of any other opinion from the outside world. German Wikipedia sees only one side. They try everything to make the Palestinian death toll appear less severe, pretend anti-palestinianism does not exist and the Gaza genocide accusations are just disinformation and should have no place to even mention in Wikipedia. Instead, the Israelian war against the Palestinian people is presented as the only logical consequence and no further questions asked. In return, this sways public opinion in Germany to e.g. increase support for exporting more and more weapons to Israel. So yes, the German knowledge isolation can have drastic real life consequences! Laitonix (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I talked to the person (Ambross07) who deleted the page on his talk page and he said "For me it's no question of pro or against Netanyahu, but a question of articles quality. The quality was very bad and not neutral, so delation of this article was the way to go." Depotadore (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That's just an excuse. The article was a very close translation of the English Wikipedia article. Do you really think, all the hundreds of Wikipedians who wrote the English article over several years, did such a bad job that in the end it justifies deletion from Wikipedia? I don't think so. They make up excuses to not be held accountable. Look beyond the surface. Laitonix (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

0% logical sense Depotadore (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It’s understandable that trust issues might arise between Wikipedians and the interwiki community, especially when cross-wiki collaboration brings in different standards, guidelines, and cultural perspectives. A similar dynamic can be observed with Rutificador Chile, a tool that provides easy access to Chilean citizens' RUT (Rol Único Tributario) numbers. This tool sparked debates around data privacy and ethics, as open access to personal information created concerns among users despite the goal of transparency.

Much like the tension between Wikipedians and the interwiki community, Rutificador’s existence highlights the delicate balance between making information accessible and ensuring it’s used responsibly. Both the Wikipedia ecosystem and Rutificador Chile aim to democratize information but face challenges when that information isn't handled in ways aligned with the community’s expectations and ethical standards.

In Wikipedia’s case, interwiki communities may prioritize linking and sharing across languages, while Wikipedians often emphasize editorial control, neutrality, and accuracy—leading to friction. Similarly, while Rutificador offers data transparency, it has triggered concerns about how easily accessible information might be misused, eroding public trust.

Building trust in both scenarios requires open dialogue, better alignment of goals, and clear guidelines for responsible use of shared information. Wikipedians and interwiki communities, much like users and developers of tools like Rutificador, must find common ground to ensure that openness doesn’t compromise ethics and that transparency strengthens rather than weakens trust. 110.37.98.127 03:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I encountered a similar inadequate position in the German wiki when I translated one article into German. I was required to provide links to German or at least European sources on history that was weakly connected to Europe. But I managed to find the "correct links" with great effort. The German wiki is like Germany in 1939. DarqaviPalladin (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Outcome: The article has now indeed been deleted. German Wikipedia indeed ignored the international scientific debate about the gaza genocide and just followed the narrative of the Israelien goverment. That's the state of German Wikipedia in 2024: their biased opinion is worth more than scientific sources. Keep an eye on what's happening in German Wikipedia, and always remember: Germany was on the wrong side of the history two times, and there is little evidence that it will be on the right side of history this time: Again Germans are indirectly involved in a genocide. English Wikipedia already has a chapter about it: German complicity in the gaza genocide. It's time for the international community to protect the integrity of Wikipedia, especially in Germany. --Laitonix (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As a german native speaker who checked the process I'd like to offer a second opinion: I also don't like how things are handled in wp:de from time to time, but there are some statements here, that I cannot leave without a comment. I directly refuse the comment: "That's the state of German Wikipedia in 2024: their biased opinion is worth more than scientific sources. Keep an eye on what's happening in German Wikipedia, and always remember: Germany was on the wrong side of the history two times, and there is little evidence that it will be on the right side of history this time"

Regardless of the work that has been done (and ignored via a deletion): german wikipedia acknowledes the genocide-accusations, compare w:de:Krieg_in_Israel_und_Gaza_seit_2023#Vorwürfe_wegen_Kriegsverbrechen_und_Völkermord there is even a paragraph w:de:Krieg_in_Israel_und_Gaza_seit_2023#Klage_Nicaraguas_gegen_Deutschland, which acknowledges the accusations against germany. I would support single articles, but as far as I know the german wikipedia, this is not their way! There are voices that argued: "keep the article" with different reasons and also with acknowledgement for non-german sources. The Opinion "The article will only be reliable, German wikipedians claim, if it is sourced on German scholars" is to be considered wrong from my point of view, because it was clearly asked to "add german sources" (compare w:de:Spezial:Diff/247666285/247666290) before the initial posting here.

And to provide the reasoning for the deletion in a translation: "There are undoubtedly accusations of genocide, and the topic is fundamentally relevant. However, the present attempt is more than inadequate. The overflowing article reproduces all possible quotes and thus compiles more of a list of accusations. The discourse on the topic is not presented, the responses to the accusations (and by that I do not mean counter-accusations in the sense of "but Hamas did it too") remain unmentioned. However, the neutral presentation is not to be found in the complete and uncommented repetition of all statements against Israel, but rather in the reproduction of the refutations and in the classification based on scientific analysis of the events. Restructuring the article accordingly is more complex than rewriting it properly. It is therefore deleted due to the clear violation of the principle of a neutral standpoint and blatant quality defects." (feel free to check the translation yourself: w:de:Spezial:Diff/247964888/247968857). Regards HirnSpuk (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

They believed that US sources are by default tendentious. Here is the translation from the initial request: "The article also largely reflects a US-American (or English-language) background and does not include a single German-language source, so it must obviously be tendentious "

They believe that everything from the outside world is tendentious. ...well, we have had such a mindset several decades ago. It's not good. It should not matter from which country a scientific paper comes from. By making the nationality of the scholars an issue, german wikipedia follows a dark route and violate NPOV very clearly.

Sure, they asked to "add" german sources, not replace everything with only german scholars. That would be too obvious. Instead, their strategy is to add as many pro-Israelian german sources as possible such that the reader must get the impression that german scholars represent the majority opinion, and the international sources warning about an ongoing genocide are only a blasphemous minority. An article that does not follow this strategy and instead truly reports that the international scholars are actually the majority, must therefore be deleted as quickly as possible. That's what we saw. Laitonix (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem is actually much deeper than just the one article I mentioned. Every article covering Israel or the middle east is completely aligned with the Netanjahu government position on the issue. There is no neutral point of view. You can almost always just do a side by side comparison with the English Wikipedia to reveal the massive anti-palestinian bias exiting in German Wikipedia. --Laitonix (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

They break the five basic pillars of Wikipedia which includes "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" and "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility"☝️. Depotadore (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The preference for sources that are in the language of the project is not in itself unusual. A similar preference can be seen on the English Wikipedia and it is a natural preference because it is much easier to verify a source that is in the same language as that of the contributors. It is probably less problematic on the English language projects because so much scientific1 literature is published in English and / or translated into English. Anyway, if the issue for some contributors to the German Wikipedia is they don't trust the US (and / or UK) media, then the answer may be to use other sources of which there are plenty. The French media is full of commentary on the conflict that does not reflect the US view and if someone is truly biased, as opposed to just distrusting the US view, then it will quickly become apparent to other contributors when they try and argue away the French, Dutch, Swiss and Swedes as also being tendentious. MarcGarver (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not how it works. First of all, almost all editors showing some empathy for Palestinian civilians have been blocked. After the article was deleted, there was a tribunal and everyone who was in favor of keeping the Gaza genocide article was in trouble; most of them got blocked. I was blocked a while ago because I contributed to the German version of en:Anti-Palestinianism (the article was deleted as well) So most editors are already afraid to even question the official position of the Netanyahu goverment.

And it's not that they don't trust only US sources in particular. Every source that is not from a pro-Israel pro-Netanyahu (german) journalist or scholar is viewed with a lot of suspicion.

They created their own filter bubble where only their opinion is valid, everything else they try to keep out with all means possible. Laitonix (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

One other example is de:Antisemitische Vorfälle während des Krieges in Israel und Gaza ("Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war"). In this article, they list everyone protesting against Israel, Netanyahu, war crimes etc. All of that is framed as antisemitic. They don't differentiate between legitimate critique and real antisemitism. When you then question this, you get blocked and your post from the talk page is deleted. Example: Censorship, blocked author (and one last bonus fact: the equivalent article "Anti-Palestinianism during the Israel–Hamas war" was of course deleted as well) Laitonix (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There is one more thing that really should concern you. As I posted earlier, they block and censor everyone critical of Israel. But what happens when, let's say, someone posts a really hateful text against Palestinians? Well, we now have the answer: nothing. You even get a lot of praise and protection for that. Here is the case: one person posted things like "There is also no problem with hunger in Gaza. The people there are doing well, far too well for what they have done." (a real quote, see [1]) No problem to post that in German Wikipedia at all. Later, she regret what she posted and wanted it to be deleted. (Kudos for this one person!) But surprise: Her removal was reverted and she was blocked because of "Edit-War" (trying to delete her own hateful post). Not because of the initial hateful post, no, no, but because she wanted to withdraw her post! They like the post so much that they wanted to keep it even against the person's will. Proof: [2] That was the motivation for blocking her. Translated: "Removed third opinion [...]. In addition, this also via Editwar." Again, what she wanted to be removed was this: [3] (her own hateful post) Can you believe this?

In German Wikipedia there is a massive problem with Anti-Palestinian sentiment. Posting hate-speech against Palestinians: no problem. Posting critique on Israels war: direct block. This in turn leads to massively biased articles. And it should be something the international community should be very, very concerned about. --Laitonix (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest news: Another article is on the trail for deletion. This time: de:Ausschreitungen in Amsterdam im November 2024 (from en:November 2024 Amsterdam attacks). Why do they want to have the article deleted, you may ask? Well, because some Israelian fans shouted racist slurs before the attacks and this doesn't fit so nicely into their narrative of the Israelis as innocent victims. And because they cannot remove that information from the article (they tried, but other users insist it should be included, luckily!), they now try to delete the article completely. They cannot allow that any article says something negative about Israelian people. Because all Israelis are decent and ethical people! Any article which says otherwise must be deleted, and the information must be eradicated from public knowledge.
Ideological bias outweighs freedom of information. And of course, users have been blocked. Everyone in favor of the article is threatened with a ban. Even users registered in 2018, having hundreds of contributions. Some users are blocked because they are Moslem. --Laitonix (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed the article was not deleted. This time, a lot of sane authors actually worked to improve the article. Finally, regular users notice what's going on and speak up. Not all hope is lost.

However, they now try to double down on user blocks. They even try to establish a kind of collective punishment for all authors of Arab origin. Here is someone suggesting that an Arab user should be blocked until Hamas stops their terror attacks, only because the user is Arab. Making him responsible for the actions of the Hamas only because he is Arab. He said quote: "[lock him up] Let's say until Hamas, Hezbollah and the other guys on the scene renounce terror."

So the situation is still very concerning, should be monitored further. Laitonix (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting is also this case of a user blocked just because the administrators didn't like his opinion: de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Verletzung der Neutralität. The Arbitration Committee now has to decide if the block was legit or not. It is again related to someone trying to bring in new sources and arguments he read from the English Wikipedia and wondered why German Wikipedia did miss them. But as usual, in German Wikipedia, only one opinion is allowed. Thus, the user got blocked. Is this how the two sister projects are meant to relate to each other? Something that is common sense in one project leads to direct block in another project? --Laitonix (talk) 15:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Aside from the Universal Code of Conduct (which if you think was violated has its own reports process), individual projects are editorially independent. This page is not a central authority that can overrule the German Wikipedia's decisions, and your continued ranting about it will get you nowhere. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 23:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This is turning into utterly counterproductive ranting with no possibility of accomplishing anything. If you have grounds to do so, then you can file a report at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases. Otherwise Meta is not going to overrule the editorial independence of the German Wikipedia (or any other language Wikipedia). End of story. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

 This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Where else to re-propose restricting new users from interwiki-uploading?

Besides enwiki and arwiki, where else can I re-propose? I attempted a Community Wish, which was then "archived"... or rather declined by the WMF as policy-related. The Commons community has favored restricting newest (or non-confirmed) users from crosswiki-uploading files into Commons. So have arwiki and enwiki. Shall I re-propose at dewiki, Meta's RFC, or where else? George Ho (talk) 16:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)