I didn't see this mentioned anywhere so I'm posting a link

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

I wonder if Israelis can really afford to become that detached from reality.

This was my full correspondence with Shamah.

----

Re: "Internet Independence Day," 6 May 2008

David Shamah writes that CAMERA's campaign on Wikipedia was not a secret, citing a public May 3rd posting by CAMERA's Gilead Ini which encouraged pro-Israel activists to edit Wikipedia. This posting came fully two weeks after Mr. Ini was outed organizing pro-Israel activists to edit Wikipedia in secret, and to violate the principles of neutrality, openness, trust, and consensus which govern it. A panel of three neutral and experienced Wikipedia administrators, all with experience dealing with nationalistic campaigning (Balkan, East European, Hindutva, Armenian-Azeri, etc) investigated the affair thoroughly and fairly, publishing their findings at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ilobby_campaign - findings which have met no serious challenge from any Wikipeda user, "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian."

Crocodile tears over how "it's easier to make up stories than to do fact checking" hardly engender sympathy when one promulgates such basic and demonstrable errors of fact.

Evan Harper, Canada
(Wikipedia user "Eleland" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eleland)

----

Evan,

Anyone who knows the work of Camera would not be surprised at its interest in editing a publicly-editable encyclopedia to ensure historical accuracy. This page

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=387

gives a good orientation as to what the organization is all about, and it far predates May 3 or any "outing" two weeks previously. Not that there's anything wrong with editing a publicly-editable encyclopedia. After all, it's publicly-editable, right?

Of course, YOU are perfectly fair, balanced and neutral when it comes to Israel, as your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eleland makes clear, especially with its statement

"I will /*not*/ apologize for working strenuously to fix Wikipedia's severe neutrality problems when it comes to Israel."

Like I said - "they"(anti-Israel web types) tend to get very hot under the collar when someone calls them on their prejudice. I guess Wikipedia is publicly editable for those like you who "will */not/ *apologize," but not for those who post any accurate information about Israel that doesn't fit your world view (in your case, "the special relationship <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relationship> between Israel and the Anglosphere <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere>").

You are a perfect example of the type of anti-Zionist I was talking about. And my guess is you don't like Jews too much either, given that "special relationship" which, as we all know, stems from the fact that the Jews own the media...

Word of advice: If you're going to present yourself as "fair and balanced," don't supply the evidence (your links) that proves the opposite - make me work for it, at least a little bit!

ds

----

David,

Your link to CAMERA's reccomendations to student activists has no apparent relevance to the factual error at hand, and your "guess" that I am an antisemitic conspiracy theorist was gratuitous to say the least. The fact is that Mr. Ini did organize his campaign in secret, and your column obfuscated this point. He very clearly urges secrecy in the e-mails which Electronic Intifada published. Do you deny this?

Evan Harper

----

Evan,

Please explain why it is legitimate for you to edit Wikipedia but not members of Camera. The issue of "secrecy" is a non-starter because Camera as a private organization is not obligated to share its communications with you or anyone else. I guess you never discuss politics or ideas with others people through private e-mail, only through Wikipedia pages. How about sharing the contents of your e-mail box with the rest of the world? Better yet, pay up for a Camera membership and be privy to e-mails it sends out to members.
And speaking of "secrecy": The EI article (http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article9474.shtml) gives no indication of how it got its hands on these messages. Were they sent by a spy EI has in the organization? Is this a case of illegal hacking? Either way, sounds pretty sneaky to me - and probably illegal. Did the spy, if indeed there was one, violate terms of a membership agreement? It's hard to take this whole thing seriously without complete openness from EI, which has yet to respond to these charges. How do we know that it wasn't the work of an EI "activist" with an overactive imagination? It wouldn't be the first time enemies of Israel used computer technology to create a libel out of whole cloth (http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud/) - and by the way, if you're really interested in a fair and balanced, perhaps you'd like to comment on Adnan Hajj's example of "overactive activism?"

Of course, you think that analogy is ridiculous - and that's not surprising, since you have made it your mission to blow wide open "the special relationship between Israel and the Anglosphere" ("gratuitous" conspiracy comment, indeed!). The question is, is it ridiculous to /really/ objective people, which you have made clear that you are not. I don't know what your organizational affiliations are (care to share?), but I suppose I could take a guess, if I really had to. So, you have your POV, a very clear one that takes a specific side in the mideast conflict; anything the anti-Zionist side says is taken as gospel truth, and Israel cannot, by definition, ever be right. Example from a statement by you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eleland/JeninSandbox): "Editors have objected that these reports used Palestinian testimony (although the EU seemed to say that their conclusion was based on physical survey of the site), pretending that they know better than the most competent and respected human rights groups in the world." Doesn't that claim (most competent...) require a citation as well? Are we just supposed to take your word for it? I don't think HRW is so competent or respected, and here's my source (http://www.high-alert.org/archive-2006/21sep06.html). " HRW did not claim that its representatives were present when any of these alleged crimes occurred... There was no dependable method by which HRW could assess the veracity of what it was told by the 'witnesses,' many of whom were in areas where the population was sympathetic to, or intimidated by Hizballah." But that can't be right, can it? Or maybe it can - which would sort of throw a monkey wrench in this whole persona you have built for yourself, of objective, scholarly researcher who cites sources for everything. Again - what gives you the right to push your prejudiced, unsubstantiated POV on the rest of us, a right you deny others?

We who love Israel are tired of the double standard you and your cohorts have been trying to dump on us. That Israel can do no right, and that the Arabs can do no wrong; that your version of history is the only one (you mean there's more than one?); and that we are expected to sit down and shut up while you rewrite the facts, with "truth" based on who can whine the loudest. Here's a challenge for you: Please name even ONE positive thing Israel has accomplished AS AN ENTITY since it first came into being - an accomplishment not tainted with your world view on Israel's evils, but an objective, single thing Israel as a country or society has managed to accomplish (accomplishments by Israelis, such as the development of the processor in your computer or the operating system running it, both largely done in Israel, does not count). Certainly Israel's history contains even a single positive implication for the world!

PS: So you don't accuse me of being involved in a "sneaky plot," you should be aware that at least one of the reasons I am investing time in this exchange is that it is giving me useful material for a future article (no names or e-mails, of course). I look forward to your answer re my challenge. And yes, anti-Semitism is clearly a part of it, as anyone who reads the blogs and sites specializing in anti-Israel posts can attest to. The Holocaust deniers (now I didn't say you were one, did I?) try to deny us even our dead, and the anti-Zionists try to deny us what is left of our nation after the six million were murdered. There's a very clear line, for those who are truly honest.

ds

----

David,

It's legitimate for members of CAMERA to edit Wikipedia. It's legitimate for members of the IDF to edit Wikipedia. (Ask http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ynhockey.) In fact offhand I can't think of any organizational affiliation that would absolutely disqualify one from editing Wikipedia.

The problem is not political affiliation, or even partisan bias. The problem is that Wikipedia's organizational structure breaks down as soon as people start co-ordinating their actions in secret. It's not set up as a parliament where various partisan blocs wheel and deal freely. There are strict rules against canvassing for votes in order to artificially increase support or opposition to a given measure. These rules have not just been invented for CAMERA. Partisan and nationalist blocs are not a new phenomenon on Wikipedia; everybody from Lyndon LaRouchies to the Tamil Tigers has had a go. Frankly, CAMERA's group was one of the less dangerous blocs. As Gershom Gorenberg puts it, as conspirators go they were shlemiels.

The authenticity of the e-mails is supported by multiple lines of evidence. First, the e-mails by "Zeq," who was the group's self-appointed strategist, showed detailed and specific knowledge of Wikipedia disputes he's been involved in, and they matched his fairly "unique" writing style to a T. Second, the editing discussed in the mailing list matches the activity going on at WP at the same time. When somebody says "I just signed up yesterday, and I corrected X and article Y," you find that yes, a new user account was created at that time and fixed X on article Y. I was personally involved in some of the disputes which the e-mail "Zeq" cited, and he wrote exactly what I would expect the Wikipedian "Zeq" to write. Third, those WP editors who were identifiable in the CAMERA e-mails were asked point-blank: is this you, are the emails accurate? -- and none of them gave a straight answer. "Zeq" in particular was asked about 20 times and he only gave vague, general statements and counter-accusations about how he was being persecuted. Fourth, the user "Gni" is known to have edited from IP addresses registered to CAMERA, and is almost certainly Gilead Ini. The CAMERA call for volunteers went out March 13th, a week after Ini had started making questionable, promotional edits to the Wikipedia article on CAMERA, and most of his changes had failed to gain wider support. The introductory e-mails specifically mentioned this article as one of Ini's areas of concern. Most of the initial discussion on the list regarded this article.

So to believe these e-mails were not authentic, you have to believe that someone with very intimate knowledge of obscure Wikipedia politics put together an exceptionally well-crafted fraud, somehow spoofed CAMERA IP addresses or hacked CAMERA computers in order to make incriminating edits, and targeted at least one long-time pro-Israel user (Zeq) who even though he was the victim of this insidious conspiracy, ever denied writing the e-mails which were forged in his name, despite being asked about them repeatedly, and that even though it brought bad press to his organization, Mr. Ini for some reason refused to deny it either.

I've read through the rest of your e-mail two or three times now and frankly I can't make heads or tails of it. I'm in no position to speculate on how Electronic Initfada got their hands on the mailing list archives. What does a ham-handed Photoshop job by a Reuters stringer have to do with this? And where do you get the claim that I think "the Arabs can do no wrong?" Do you think it would be fair of me to accuse you of believing that "the Jews can do no wrong?" I'm not going to argue with you about Human Rights Watch or holocaust denial or how Pentium 4 processors come from Haifa or whatever else you want to go off on.

Anyway, I'm happy to be quoted in your upcoming article, and you may identify me by my full name and/or my Wikipedia pseudonym. For background: I am 22 years old, a resident of Ontario, Canada, and I have no personal, ethnic, or religious stake in the Isr-Pal conflict either way. You should know that I am only one volunteer editor and I speak for neither the broad Wikipedia community or the Wikimedia Foundation which manages it. Depending on the scope of your article you may also wish to correspond with other WP editors; I'd be happy to recommend some names, on either or neither side of the Isr-Pal divide.

Evan Harper

I wonder why I imagine David Shamash's portion of this correspondence to be spoken in the high-pitched dubbed-over voice of a villain in a low budget kung fu movie:

"How dare you challenge me with your primitive skills, Eleland! Now you will see the true power of Shaolin; too bad you will DIE before the knowledge can be of any use to you!"

This is a demonstration of why NPOV is impossible. Eleland has his POV and others have theirs. And of course the article is right to point out that after 1948 there was no legal jurisdiction of the wet bank or Gaza - they were illegally occupied by Transjordan (which renamed itself Jordan to flout its occupation) and Egypt. For 19 years nobody seemed to mind this illegal occupation, although formally no other Arab country recognised it.

Moderator's note: should you feel the impulse to begin debating the pros and cons of Zionism on this thread, hold that thought. Your post will be moved to a spectacularly long off-topic thread called Assorted Zionism-related debates, so why not just go directly to that thread and post it, thereby saving us the trouble of moving it?

Substitute "Zohan" for Shaolin, and you've just about got it.

"Quake at my Jewish toughness! Nyah, nyah, I'm going to push a grapefruit into your face, nyah."

(James Cagney, playing Capone )

I don't think that really works. Edward G. Robinson and Paul Muni were Jewish (though their gangster characters were usually Italian-American) but Cagney wasn't.

Gak, you're right. I have confused Little Caeser with Scarface where the grapefruit scene actually occurs. Ah well, had to happen.