Wikipedia’s “Antisemitic Canard”

by David Sims

WIKIPEDIA IS a useful and generally accurate source of information on mathematics and physics. But it has a distinctly Zionist bias with regard to history and politics, and a leftist bias with regard to race.

The following attempted edit of mine failed to even post on Wikipedia’s Talk page on “Antisemitic canard.” [Note — this is not even the topic page, which the public generally reads, but an internal discussion page which is seldom seen except by editors. — Ed.] Apparently, an editor there has an automatic revert to the previous version of the page.

I took out nothing; I only tried to add this:

I agree with [IP address]’s argument and with his standards for epistemology. Wikipedia has demonstrated repeatedly, over the years, that its NPOV (neutral point of view) is no such thing where certain topics are concerned, and Jewish history and/or Jewish interests are among such topics.

Just in the above exchange, I see one side arguing that objectivity should be maintained when examining Jews; i.e., that exceptionalism should be avoided, that assumptions friendly toward Jews are as improper as are assumptions hostile toward Jews. And I see the other side making unsupported assertions generally to the effect that every antisemitic opinion must necessarily be false.

Wikipedia is obviously not in hands capable of recognizing neutrality on this subject. Instead, those hands try to place their “mark” of neutrality somewhere that it should not be, or to characterize neutrality as something it isn’t. Among those who have the biggest say, or the final discretion, in what stays on these pages and what will be removed, there is a history, long and strong, of establishing what “credibility” is — who has it, and who does not — by declaration.

The allocation of credibility here proceeds with political motives. To be sure, as one writer said, (specific) statements are either true or false, and there is no middle truth-value between them. But that assessment is, perhaps intentionally, incomplete. Complex descriptions contain many statements, any of which may be either true or false, and you should take them one by one when trying to determine which statements are false. Further, just because each specific statement must be either true or false does not mean you may pick the truth-value that you prefer, skipping all analysis and pretending that, in this case, the setting forth of evidence is something that need not be done.

End of attempted revision.

To summarize:

• Wikipedia’s claims of Neutral Point of View (NPOV) can be fraudulent. This is particularly likely with its treatments of Jewish history, Jewish organizations, or Jewish politics.

• Wikipedia assumes that every antisemitic statement is necessarily false.

• Wikipedia supports the deception that certain statements that anyone can determine to be true through research (i.e., Jews control most of the Western mainstream media) are “canards.”

• Wikipedia’s assignment of credibility can be purely a process of political maneuvering: an attempt to seize the high ground without earning that position through success in reasoned debate.

• Wikipedia’s Zionist editors sometimes, perhaps frequently, engage in semantic trickery and in censorship, rather than lose an argument.

* * *

Source: Author