TheIsraeli–Palestinian conflict has been covered extensively onWikipedia.[2] This coverage has faced criticism from advocates on both sides for perceived bias. External groups have launched coordinated editing campaigns to influence the content of the platform. The volume of edits on topics related to theGaza war has surged significantly since the7 October attacks of 2023. Coverage of the conflict differs significantly amongWikipedia's language editions.
Journalist Omer Benjakob ofHaaretz suggests that "two warring camps" of pro-Israel and pro-Palestine Wikipedia editors emerged after theSecond Intifada ended.[3] During the Second Intifada, an article on Israel'sWest Bank barrier was created; the article initially called it a "security fence" and supported Israel, but it was later updated that day to include the phrase "apartheid wall".[4]
In September 2006,WikiProject Israel was established to improve coverage of Israel-related topics. WikiProject Palestine was created two months later. In 2008, the WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration was set up to reconcile editing efforts, with the project's page reading: "In a subject plagued by conflicting historical narratives, we are working to make Wikipedia the conflict's most balanced reference point. Help us build bridges and break down barriers in the world's most intractable conflict."[3]
In 2008,The Electronic Intifada, a pro-Palestinian organisation, published leaked emails from the pro-Israel watchdogCommittee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) that purported to reveal an organised influence campaign on Wikipedia.[5][3] The campaign suggested that pro-Israeli editors should pretend to be interested in other topics until elected as administrators. Once they became administrators, they were to use their powers to suppress pro-Palestinian editors and support pro-Israel editors.[6] The emails resulted in at least five editors receiving lifetime bans on Wikipedia.[3]
Also in 2008, after disputes reached a fever pitch over the Second Intifada and other articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Wikipedia'sArbitration Committee decided on a set of rules of conduct for editing articles related to the conflict. Editors are required to have made over 500 edits for at least 30 days to edit articles related to the conflict, can make only one revert per day across the entire field, and can be banned from editing related articles. The ruling was reaffirmed and expanded in 2009 and 2015.[3] Since 2008, there have been four arbitration cases dealing with the conflict, usually in tandem with outbreaks of violence in the Middle East.[7]
The Jerusalem Post reported in 2010 that "Israeli editors have sensed a growing presence of pro-Palestinian activists" on the English Wikipedia, and that there were calls for vigilance on Israel-related topics on the Hebrew Wikipedia.[8] In August 2010, two Israeli right-wing groups, theYesha Council andMy Israel, ran a course on editing Wikipedia from a pro-Zionist point of view.[9][10] Yesha Council directorNaftali Bennett said, "We don't want to change Wikipedia or turn it into a propaganda arm. We just want to show the other side. People think that Israelis are mean, evil people who only want to hurt Arabs all day."[9] In response, Abed A-Nassar, the chairman of the Association of Palestinian Journalists, called on Palestinian institutions to make Wikipedia articles more pro-Palestinian and counter what he called Israel's "public relations war".[11][10]
In June 2013, Arnie Draiman, online communications editor for the pro-Israel groupNGO Monitor, was indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia articles about theArab–Israeli conflict due to biased editing, concealing his place of work, and using a second account in a way Wikipedia policy forbids. Draiman was amajor contributor to the articles on NGO Monitor and its founderGerald Steinberg, and made hundreds of edits on articles about human rights organizations, includingB'Tselem, theNew Israel Fund,Human Rights Watch, and many others Steinberg opposes.[12]
In 2014,Euronews reported that the Hebrew and Arabic articles on the2014 Gaza war presented drastically different photographic narratives, with the English article having more balance.[13]
In December 2017, after U.S. PresidentDonald Trump announced that the U.S. wouldrecognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Wikipedia followed suit, sparking debate among editors. At that time, the English andHebrew Wikipedia articles said thatJerusalem was Israel's capital, while theArabic Wikipedia article said that Israel claimed it as its capital, but it was in occupied Palestine.[14] The same month, anedit war broke out between "pro-Israel" and "pro-Palestine" editors over the inclusion of allegations thatPalestinian-American activistLinda Sarsour had rejectedsexual harassment accusations in her article; Benjakob commented, "Though it is common for political disputes to play out on Wikipedia – for example, pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors fighting over contentious topics likeJerusalem's status – Sarsour's case highlights how the Israel-Palestine issue can sometimes trump other important ones."[15]
In November 2020,Haaretz reported that the "West Bank bantustans" article comparing Israel's control of the West Bank to the Black-only enclaves inapartheid-era South Africa indicated a possible shift in Wikipedia's consensus onlikening Israel to an apartheid regime. Editors said that the article's having survived a deletion proposal indicated that events such as theTrump peace plan andBenjamin Netanyahu'spledge to annex parts of theWest Bank undermined Israel's talking point that it supported atwo-state solution and strove to establish aPalestinian state.[16]
Benjakob said in 2020:
Edit wars on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have had a fundamental influence on how Wikipedia addresses contentious issues; for example, the practice of locking articles to public editing and permitting only editors with a username and certain level of Wikipedia experience to contribute. The result has been the emergence of two ideological camps, so-called pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian editors, who have been locked in what some describe as an editorial stalemate.[16]
In February 2021, the Hebrew Wikipedia renamed its version of the article on theIsraeli occupation of the West Bank, changing "occupation" to "rule".[17] In July 2023, theKohelet Policy Forum confirmed that one of its staff members had edited the Hebrew Wikipedia against their own and Wikipedia rules, usingsock puppet accounts.[18]
TheGaza war has been extensively covered on Wikipedia and other related projects in various languages. This included articles about the7 October attacks as well as theIsraeli blockade of the Gaza Strip and theinvasion that followed.[19] Articles related to the war have experienced edit warring due to the diversity of narratives from both sides of the conflict;[20][21] for example, in the war's first week, a Hebrew Wikipedia editor added information to articles on former Israeli security officials, but not Prime MinisterBenjamin Netanyahu and his allies, in ways that arguably pointed to these officials' responsibility for Israel's failure to prevent the 7 October attacks.[21] Editors have debated topics such as whether Israel should be called an example of "settler colonialism" or an "apartheid regime" and whether its military operations in Gaza should be classified as agenocide.[7]
TheWikimedia Foundation (WMF) issued a statement titled "Wikimedia updates on the crisis inGaza Strip andIsrael" on 4 December 2023, and another statement the next day calling for "an end to measures preventing access to the internet in the Gaza Strip".[22]
On 23 December 2023, the Arabic Wikipedia changedits logo to the colors of thePalestinian flag and suspended editing articles for the day to protest the Israeli military campaign in Gaza as well as the bias of Western governments, especially the U.S., towards Israel. The step was taken to express solidarity and rejection of misinformation, according to a banner published on the Arabic Wikipedia's main page.[23][24] Many Arab users and supporters of the Palestinian cause welcomed this solidarity, while some Israeli users criticized it for breaking Wikipedia's rules on neutrality.[25]
In early 2024, the English-language Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee banned three editors involved in a pro-Israel editing campaign. The Committee's investigation found that after the 7 October attacks, one banned editor had begun directing other editors to edit articles related to the conflict, including theuse of human shields, theBeit Rima raid, and crimes against Israel. One of the editors also urged colleagues to vote for an article that called the Gaza war a genocide to be deleted or merged.[26] Some editors who were accused of whitewashing articles reflecting badly onIran were also accused of biased editing in articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, such as creating an article on the2024 Houthi drone attack on Israel; the article said the attack was "hailed as a victory for the oppressed Palestinian people and their fighters". It was later updated to attribute the attack toHezbollah.[26]
In June 2024, an edit war involving the English Wikipedia articles for the2024 Nuseirat rescue operation and theNuseirat refugee camp massacre took place, which led to the restriction of editing access to those articles.[27][28] The 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation article was based on the official Israeli narrative, while the Nuseirat refugee camp massacre article relied on figures provided by theGaza Health Ministry.[26] In January 2025, after further discussion, the two articles were merged into an article titled "Nuseirat rescue and massacre".[29]
In July 2024, the English Wikipedia article on "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" was renamed "Gaza genocide" after two months of debate.[30][31] The article was added to the "List of genocides" article that November,[32] and a section on Palestine was added to the "Genocide of indigenous peoples" article in the same month.[33]
In September 2024,Jewish Insider reported that a group of editors from the coalition "Tech for Palestine" had been using third-party tools, such asDiscord, to coordinate efforts in what they called the "information battle for truth, peace and justice" on the "Wikipedia front". Their activities included compiling lists of pages they planned to edit, requesting specific changes, and sharing instructional "how-to" videos. One of their resources said: "Wikipedia is not just an online encyclopedia. It's a battleground for narratives."[34] The investigation found that "The current conservative edit impact estimate for the group (based on available evidence) is 260 edits on 114 articles".[35]
According toJewish Insider, the group was partially responsible for the decision to categorize theAnti-Defamation League as an unreliable source on topics related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles has suggested that despite the site's political neutrality, editors often attempt to inject their own bias when editing articles.[36]
In December 2024, the Arbitration Committee banned two pro-Palestine editors indefinitely and restricted three others for "canvassing", or notifying fellow editors about a discussion pertaining to a specific edit "with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion a particular way". The committee accused the editors of "encouraging other users to game the extended confirmed restriction and engage in disruptive editing".[37]
In January 2025, the Arbitration Committee topic-banned six "pro-Palestine" and two "pro-Israel" editors from editing articles related to the conflict. The bans were related to the editors' behavior and conduct, not the content of their edits.[38][39] The Arbitration Committee also found thatsock puppet accounts are "an ongoing issue... causing significant disruption".[26] In addition to the bans, the Committee introduced the "balanced editing restriction", which requires sanctioned users to devote only a third of their edits to articles related to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict even when no misconduct rules have been violated.[40][7]
Haaretz's Omer Benjakob noted in 2021 that the English, Hebrew, and Arabic Wikipedias' articles on the conflict are very different, and that the conflict is one of the three most regulated areas on English Wikipedia.[17] In 2023,Stephen Harrison ofSlate wrote, "It shouldn't come as a surprise that Wikipedia is a better place to learn about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict thanX,TikTok, and other social media platforms are."[19] HistorianShira Klein [he], comparing coverage of the Gaza war on English and Hebrew Wikipedia in 2024, said that the distortions lie in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and that there is "a bit of a war between Right and Left on Hebrew Wikipedia."[41]
In a March 2024 report, theWorld Jewish Congress (WJC) wrote, "the state of the articles dealing with the conflict is alarming in its lack of neutrality." It also said that Wikipedia'scomparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany article "normalizes the unacceptable comparison" due to terms such as "occupation" and "military actions". The WJC also reported that "deletion attacks" occurred on Wikipedia, resulting in simultaneous deletion nominations of the articles for theNetiv HaAsara,Nir Yitzhak andHolit massacres, as well asInbal Rabin-Lieberman.[42] A columnist inThe Forward called the WJC's cited examples of bias against Israel "less than convincing".[43] Klein also criticized the report.[44]
A June 2024Jerusalem Post opinion piece said that the English version of the Gaza war article was arguably more neutral than the Arabic and Hebrew versions.[45] Another, written in September, said that the titling of the Gaza Genocide article should "by any reasonable measure, hammer a final nail into the coffin of Wikipedia's credibility as a reliable source of information about Israel and Jews."[46]Ynetnews wrote in August 2024: "Since the war began, Wikipedia has become a battleground for information warfare, with significant power struggles between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors. According to Israeli editors, many entries are written from anti-Israel perspectives by editors using the platform to echo Palestinian messages."[47]Israel Hayom wrote in September 2024: "Wikipedia is often subject to scrutiny, especially when it comes to contentious issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. With millions of readers relying on the site for information, changes to entries like these can have significant implications for public understanding of historical events and modern geopolitical debates."[48] According to an October 2024 report byAshley Rindsberg of the media companyPirate Wires, a group of Wikipedia editors have a "coordinated operation" that has "systematically altered thousands of articles to tilt public opinion against Israel".[49][50]
In January 2025,The Forward reported that theconservative think tankThe Heritage Foundation was planning todox Wikipedians who had added text it deemed antisemitic. It sent Jewish organizations apitch deck it planned to use with tactics for exposing editors' identities.[51][52] In response, the Wikipedia community decided to add the Heritage Foundation's website to thespam blacklist that March.[53] In February 2025, Harrison said: "Let's be clear: Wikipedia's handling of this topic area is incredibly contentious. Many Wikipedians deliberately avoid pages like 'Gaza War,' 'Zionism,' and even the meta-entry on Wikipedia's own coverage of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."[40]
A March 2025Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report said it had identified a "multiyear campaign by bad-faith editors to revise Wikipedia's content on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".[54][55] A letter from 23 members of theUnited States House of Representatives to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) cited this report, asking in part how the WMF prevents anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia and for Wikipedia to "provide us data on content disputes, edit reversions, and administrator actions related to antisemitic,anti-Zionist, or anti-Israel bias."[56] Klein, who is cited in the ADL report, criticized it and the letter, saying the ADL had misrepresented her study's findings. She said the report "doesn't apply an academic study's rigor, and its methodology is faulty", and that the purpose of the report and the letter was to control the narrative about Israel rather than to combat antisemitism, using the faulty premise that criticism of Israel or Zionism is inherently antisemitic.[44] HistorianJan Grabowski, her co-author, disagreed with her criticism.[57]Jewish Voice for Peace, an anti-Zionist group, called the report "outrageous" and "a transparent attempt to shut down criticism of Israel and retaliate against Wikipedia for pointing out the ADL's anti-Palestinian bias."[58] In August 2025, Republicans on theUnited States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, citing the ADL report, started a probe into alleged bias on Wikipedia. The representatives said this was part of an investigation into "foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinion."[59][60]
In April 2025, interim U.S. Attorney for the District of ColumbiaEd Martin sent the WMF a letter accusing it of "allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda" and said that this could violate the WMF's tax-exempt status.[61]
.JPG)
As of 2023,[update] English Wikipedia articles on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have "extended confirmed protection", meaning that unregistered users cannot edit, and registered users can edit only if their account is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.[19] The WJC commented that this "leaves many Israelis unable to edit articles about which they have great knowledge."[42]
Wikipedia co-founderJimmy Wales has said the topic is often debated but the site strives to be neutral.[62][4] In December 2024, he said, "In recent months, pages around Israel-Palestine have been difficult. That doesn't mean they've become one-sided in one direction or the other. But it does mean those conversations are harder as people sort of grapple with accusations of genocide and things like that. It also means the readers are more sensitized, so if a sentence isn't quite to their liking, they feel it as more of an intense slight."[63]
In early November 2025, Wales said that the English Wikipedia article on theGaza genocide was "one of the worst Wikipedia entries I've seen in a very long time" and that it "doesn't live up to our standards of neutrality." He also commented on the article's talk page that he had been asked about the article by a reporter and said that "the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia's voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested". Other editors of the article criticized his comments.[64][65][66] TheCouncil on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), along with 42 other organizations, criticized what they saw as Wales's andLarry Sanger's, Wikipedia's other co-founder, effort to "censor the 'Gaza genocide' entry on Wikipedia".[67]
In June 2024, the English Wikipedia community declared the ADL a generally unreliable source about the conflict.[68][69][70] An English Wikipedia administrator who evaluated the community's consensus for this discussion said there was substantial evidence of the ADL acting as a "pro-Israeli advocacy group" that has published unretracted misinformation "to the point that it taints their reputation for accuracy andfact checking regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict", as well as a "habit on the ADL's part of conflatingcriticism of the Israeli government's actions with antisemitism".[71] Later that month, the English Wikipedia community concluded that the ADL's lack of reliability extended to "the intersection of antisemitism and the [Israeli-Palestinian] conflict, such as labeling pro-Palestinian activists as antisemitic", but "the ADL can roughly be taken as reliable on the topic of antisemitism when Israel and Zionism are not concerned".[71][40]
James Loeffler ofJohns Hopkins University, a professor of modern Jewish history, said the Wikipedia editors were "heavily influenced by the ADL leadership's comments", which took "a much more aggressive stance than most academic researchers in blurring the distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism".[70]
The ADL criticized the decision, saying that it was part of a "campaign to delegitimize the ADL".[68][70] ADL CEOJonathan Greenblatt said that the ADL would do all it could to persuade Wikipedia's leadership that it was misunderstanding the situation.[71]
| Overview (outline) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community (Wikipedians) |
| ||||||||
| History |
| ||||||||
| Honors | |||||||||
| References and analysis | |||||||||
| Mobile | |||||||||
| Content use | |||||||||
| Related |
| ||||||||
