There is a three-way pong match taking place, concerning the 2023 article "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" published in The Journal of Holocaust Research and the conclusions that should be drawn from it.

• Professor Shira Klein, one of the paper's co-authors, got the match started with "Is Wikipedia a cesspool of antisemitism? Don’t trust the ADL’s answer." (an op-ed in Forward), defending Wikipedia against charges of antisemitism made by the Anti-Defamation League and others who, Klein says, seek "to police public discourse about Israel" and view "Wikipedia, the eighth most-visited website in the world, as key to that endeavor".
• Professor Jan Grabowski, the other co-author, returned the serve a few days later with "Contrary to recent op-ed's conclusions, ADL report on antisemitism on Wikipedia is accurate".
• Professor Piotr Konieczny, mentioned in the paper, joined in mid-volley with "Fake news, an internet troll, and a conspiracy theory about 'Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust'" (non-paywalled link), a research letter published in the journal Holocaust Studies contesting Grabowski and Klein's methodology and conclusions. Konieczny, better known to Wikipedians as User:Piotrus, was a participant in the 2023 ArbCom case resulting from the historians' article, and had published an earlier version of his letter on-wiki at the time.

To enter the fourth dimension, you can sample "Wikipedia's War on Truth: The Fight Against Bias Toward Israel" (2:45:36 duration) in which Boaz Hepner hosts a panel of Wikipedia experts, including journalists and Justapedians, on the assumed role of Wikipedia's neutrality, and how far it appears to have veered from that path[, e]specially when analyzed by its stance on the Israel/Palestinian conflict, and Zionism. It was filmed in February 2025 and presented by The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles in May. Or "Taking Sides: Wikipedia Advances Anti-Israel Narratives" in RealClearInvestigations, released after our writing deadline, which finds The plethora of anti-Israel academics makes it easy to present anti-Israel narratives under the guise of neutrality.

For prior Signpost coverage see 2023-03-09 Recent research, 2023-05-22 In the media, 2023-05-22 Arbitration report, and 2023-06-05 In the media. – B, SR, AK

The New York Times reports on Ed Martin's record as acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia ending, with his high jinks trying to get the WMF's tax-free status revoked. The Times described Martin's action as being radically opposed to the accepted standards of prosecutorial discretion.

At another point, Mr. Martin said he viewed himself as being engaged in a "war over information." He cited a letter he had written to Wikipedia accusing it of bias and improperly shielding itself from scrutiny through its tax-exempt status.

He never suggested that Wikipedia had broken the law. He indicated that his letter was to air his view of their actions in the public arena.

"A prosecutor saying that about Wikipedia is vastly different than Tucker Carlson saying it," Mr. Martin said. "And that’s the point of the job."

The role of a prosecutor, he claimed, "is not just to find the right guy to prosecute" but to publicize their purported wrongdoing in public.

In a landmark 1940 speech, a top Justice Department official offered another vision.

Robert H. Jackson, then the attorney general, told department employees that the "greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power" was when an official "finds some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense."

Meanwhile, the Senate failed to vote to confirm Trump's appointment of Martin as US Attorney for DC, so Martin was instead appointed to the positions of the head DOJ Pardon Attorney and director of the DOJ's Weaponization Working Group, which don't require Senate confirmation. To be clear, the Weaponization Working Group's job is to counter weaponization that allegedly occured during the Biden administration. – S

• Is Trump a criminal?: It's London's aging newspaper of record, The Times, asking, about a year after Trump's 34 felony convictions. "Wikipedia is divided", The Times says, adding that "In many ways — and especially since ChatGPT uses Wikipedia extensively as source material — the site has a bigger reach and more influence than most global news outlets, including 240-year-old British newspapers from which it might on occasion source its information."
• It's a chance to learn: Ryan McGrady (User:Rhododendrites) published "What Attacks on Wikipedia Reveal about Free Expression". (Tech Policy Press, nonprofit)
• City University of New York's first Wikimedian in residence: Inside Higher Ed profiles an effort led by Wikimedian in Residence Richard Knipel [1].
• Round and round: ABP News has an article "Wikipedia changes articles..." including screenshots of diffs explained by ABP as Wikipedia editors discussing a NewsDrum article about Wikipedia bias around India's ruling party. If The Signpost gets picked up by another India media source, this could get out of hand.
• Neutral editing about the Nakba, with cash prizes? As reported by The Jerusalem Post, "a government-sanctioned organization is being platformed by the Wikipedia website [Arabic Wikipedia beginning May 15] to redact content with strong political undertones – promising to reimburse the winners with what appears to be governmental allocated funds", cash prizes including "bonuses for articles related to the Palestinian Nakba and other politically sensitive topics".
• Editor & Publisher reports that "Wikipedia faces new attacks from conservative critics", although the article largely recaps information already reported earlier this year by various outlets (and covered in the Signpost at the time).
• XXX "blowing up" on Wikipedia": "Vin Diesel's 48% Rotten Tomatoes Action Hit Is Blowing Up on Wikipedia Charts 23 Years After Its Release" (Collider)
• Documentary fails to exceed Wikipedia: The Independent says a Tom Daley docu-bio "feels like a run through the diver's Wikipedia page" [2] (see prior coverage about similar film criticism).
• Not our robot overlords, after all?: "'Yuck': Wikipedia pauses AI summaries after editor revolt" (Ars Technica), see also this issue's News and notes.