Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-02-07/In the media
Wikipedia is an extension of legacy media propaganda, says Elon Musk
A Roman salute?
A gesture made on stage by Elon Musk at the 2025 Donald Trump presidential inauguration was interpreted by some as a Nazi or Roman salute, and by others as an ambiguous wave. The Wikipedia article on the Elon Musk gesture controversy covers both possibilities, but this didn't prevent it from being the focus of attention in the media.
- Neutrality-preserving processes at work
On Elon Musk's Wikipedia biography, a long paragraph about the controversy is currently included, following the closure of a request for comment on the article's talk page as accepting that a limited mention should be included. An articles for deletion nomination for Elon Musk's arm gesture was closed with a rough consensus to keep the article. Sarah Grevy Gotfredsen wrote for the Columbia Journalism Review that "Wikipedia's update on Musk's salute is a case in point" of the encyclopedia's neutrality in describing controversial events, as it "includes Musk's physical arm movement and how it was viewed by some as a Nazi gesture, but also notes that Musk denied such intent" (emphasis added).
- Reactions, and reactions to reactions
The Independent reported that "Elon Musk was furious" after his Wikipedia page referred to his controversial gesture as a "Nazi salute":
(Musk) called out the online encyclopedia site on X after the gesticulation he made at a rally at the Capital One Arena was referred to as "a Nazi salute or fascist salute" on his Wikipedia page – something the Tesla/X CEO vehemently denies.
But the link to the "denial" is less than it first seemed. Also, Vanity Fair's article on the same matter said that "Elon Musk Sure Isn’t Denying That His Inaugural Gesture Was a Nazi Salute".
Numerous tweets were tweeted (or X'd). A Newsweek piece stated in its title that Wikipedia "fired back" at Musk, but it was actually talking about Jimmy Wales's response to a Musk tweet – both posts were linked to in the aforementioned Independent article:
I think Elon is unhappy that Wikipedia is not for sale. I hope his campaign to defund us results in lots of donations from people who care about the truth. If Elon wanted to help, he'd be encouraging kind and thoughtful intellectual people he agrees with to engage.
– Jimmy Wales
What is certain is that Musk's gesture caused different reactions within Jewish political organizations: The Forward – formerly known as Forverts when it was published in Yiddish – quoted a "conciliatory" statement by the Anti-Defamation League, who said that Musk "made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute". The ADL statement is discussed in the Wikipedia article about the controversy, which also mentions a former director of the association, Abraham Foxman, being at odds with their take. On the other hand, as reported by The Guardian, the head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Amy Spitalnick, expressed more concern over the gesture, saying that "there was nothing ambiguous" about the salutes, and that they "should be enough to warrant condemnation and attention".
Swedish national public broadcaster Sveriges Television added more details about Musk's criticism of Wikipedia (in Swedish), highlighting his claim that the site relies on "legacy media propaganda" for sourcing. It also includes another direct response from Jimmy Wales, who defended Wikipedia's neutrality, stating that the article simply reports verifiable facts: Musk made the gesture, it was widely compared to a Nazi salute, and he denied any intent. Wales also took the opportunity to remind Musk of the failure of his supposed bid to buy Wikipedia.
- And the truth is...
France 24 gave a comprehensive video analysis of Musk's gesture, while DW News (a channel of Deutsche Welle) stated what may be the last word on the meaning of the gesture. According to analyst Matthew Moore, "there's only one person I think that really knows whether this was a fascist salute, and that is Elon Musk".
Palestine-Israel Articles decision
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report on the Arbitration Committee's Palestine-Israel Articles 5 decision was the core of several stories in The Times of Israel and The Jerusalem Post, both Israeli media, as well as The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.
- The Times of Israel: "ADL: Wikipedia bans several editors for spreading antisemitic rhetoric, misinformation on Gaza war"
- The Jerusalem Post: "Anti-Israel Wikipedia editors face bans after spreading hate, misinformation"
- The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles: "Wikipedia's Supreme Court On the Verge of Topic Banning 8 Editors from Israel-Palestine Area – Group would include two editors who are pro-Israel"
Several Wikipedians provided a mix of anonymous and attributed responses to the Jewish Journal, expressing a range of opinions from optimistic – "I like the idea of something like the article titles restriction...the vacuum [caused by bans of individuals] will be filled by experienced editors who have heretofore been afraid to edit in the topic area" – to ascerbic – "[it is] flabby and insufficient ... the arbs in general were lazy, robotic, and are utterly unsuited to provide 'adult supervision' of Wikipedia."
The decision was also covered by Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), with less emphasis on the ADL commentary.
- Jewish Telegraphic Agency "Edit wars over Israel spur rare ban of 8 Wikipedia editors — from both sides"
The JTA was in turn syndicated by several US newspapers, including Miami's South Florida Sun Sentinel (read here) and Brooklyn's Jewish Press (read here).
See related Signpost coverage at this issue's Arbitration report. – B
Big picture
Stephen Harrison's latest piece for Slate combines topics we also discuss below, most specifically the Heritage Foundation's plans to "identify and target" Wikipedia editors – see prior Signpost coverage – plus the aforementioned conclusion of an ArbCom case involving Israeli and Palestinian supporters.
Harrison noted how it is not encouraging that "in the long term, Wikipedians, and the rest of us, can ask for stronger privacy protections from both lawmakers and the companies", but "until then, there is not much that users can do to protect themselves from mass surveillance."
The beat reporter sees the Heritage's alleged plan to out editors as a form of harassment to force its views into contentious articles, fearing that, if these tactics were implemented and proved to be successful, they might drive away all but the most strident editors:
Faced with the risk of harassment or real-world retaliation, many volunteer editors—especially those covering politically sensitive topics—may simply stop contributing. Those who remain are likely to be the most ideologically driven voices, further eroding Wikipedia's stated goal of neutrality.
The free encyclopedia will become too toxic to sustain.
– S
John Green's ties to AFC Wimbledon now officially acknowledged on his Wikipedia page
In a recent video for the vlogbrothers YouTube channel, author and philantropist John Green recently shared more details about "something ridiculous", that is, the latest achievement of his charity community, Nerdfighteria: the completion of a real-life soccer transfer. Green, together with his wife and about 1,100 members of Nerdfighteria, helped English League Two club AFC Wimbledon pay for the transfer of Marcus Browne, having collected most of the money through donations on several livestreams hosted at Green's solo channel.
AFC Wimbledon was founded in 2002 by former fans of Wimbledon F.C., in dissent to the controversial relocation of the club to Milton Keynes, which eventually led to the foundation of MK Dons. The phoenix club is majority-owned by a fan association, the Dons Trust, and Green – despite being a life-long fan of Liverpool F.C. – has sponsored them since July 2014, when Nerdfighteria was first announced as a back-of-shorts sponsor.
In his video about the Browne transfer, Green stated that supporting AFC Wimbledon was "one of my great achievements of my life", and that he had "no idea why it's not on my Wikipedia page". As reported by several users in the comment section, the author's call-to-action (of sorts) prompted editor Hameltion to add new information to the Personal life section of his Wikipedia article, so that the "ridiculous" milestone could be celebrated properly. In the words of Green himself, "The ridiculous is perilously close to the sublime!" – O
In brief
- Actually gotten better: In her analysis for CNN, titled "In a minefield of glitchy AI search and social media, Wikipedia becomes one of the most reliable places on the internet", Allison Morrow elaborated on how Wikipedia has not just resisted the platform decay that hit its 2000s-era peers, but it's actually gotten better and even maintains a sort of truth-in-advertising list of hoaxes that have been perpetrated against it. Morrow notably interviewed editor Molly White (known as GorillaWarfare) for her article.
- Wikipedia's birthday noted: Associated Press and the Chicago Tribune dedicated an article to the 24th birthday of Wikipedia, which has been celebrated on January 15; the city of Chicago itself has hosted Wikipedia Day four days later, alongside other nationwide and international events previously highlighted on the Signpost.
- Now exiled activist meets Jimbo: Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, a former candidate in the 2020 Belarusian presidential election who is now leader of the opposition forces in exile, revealed that she met with Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales at Davos; she reportedly presented a few proposals from the Belarusian Wikipedia community.
- On guard (aka "Wokepedia", part 72): In a recent edition of his TechScape newsletter for The Guardian, Blake Montgomery reflected on the main differences in how Facebook, Instagram and Wikipedia are dealing with attempts to "politicize the truth", citing a recent Forward report on the Heritage Foundation's plans to identify and target Wikipedia editors – see prior Signpost coverage.
- Total control? (aka "Wokepedia", part 73): In her latest piece for The Atlantic, titled "Elon Musk Wants What He Can’t Have: Wikipedia" (paywalled), Lila Shroff reports on the recent "campaign to delegitimize the digital encyclopedia" by Elon Musk and other right-wing tech figures, and how the most concerning results of their strategy could look.
- That time when the Polish PM used his Wikipedia page as ID: A viral video shared on X purported to show former Prime Minister of Poland Mateusz Morawiecki at the Capital One Arena – in connection with the latest U.S. presidential transition – showing the National Guard his cellphone so they could check his identity on his Wikipedia page before granting him entry. Too bad, it probably wasn't so; according to a fact-check article from AOL, it seems like he was just getting directions.
- It's 'Easy' to get rich with Wikipedia: Actually, not, as the UK Intellectual Property Office recently told EasyJet founder Stelios Haji-Ioannou. According to Alistair Osborne's report for The Times (paywalled), Haji-Ioannou had threatened various businesses with High Court for allegedly infringing his "easy" brand, and even used a Wikipedia entry about the London Underground as one of the proofs of the genuine use of his trademarks, which have now been revoked by the UK IPO.
- ...or Wikipedia can just write you've got the money: French magazine Entrevue reports that businessman and musician Omar Harfouch plans to take legal action against Wikipedia and X, accusing them of defamation and harassment. Harfouch alleges that his Wikipedia page has been repeatedly altered to remove references to his musical career while spreading misleading claims, including an exaggerated estimate of his wealth; he argues that Wikipedia enables misinformation by giving credibility to baseless claims and failing to prevent coordinated reputational attacks.
- "Anti-Israel Club" allegedly "exposed": A French group called Urgence Palestine ("Palestine Emergency"), which had previously been involved in protests against the Gaza war across France, conducted an off-wiki coordination campaign for biased Wikipedia editing, according to an investigative journalist writing for news magazine Le Point, whose article was then re-reported in English by the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles. It is worth-noting that Le Point and the French Wikipedia have already been at the center of controversy in the past, as reported by user Jules* in a previous Signpost issue.
- You know... it's not exactly a page move: In his January 27 monologue for The Daily Show, host Jon Stewart referred to the executive order telling U.S. agencies to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America as "Making Wikipedia-like edits to the literal globe".
Discuss this story
Musk's complaints had validity, in as much as we were, in several articles, saying he did a "Nazi salute" without qualification. Adding "what some considered" or "what many categorized as a Nazi salute" would have gone a long way, but oh no... the encyclopedia, in Wiki voice, insisted on saying Musk did a "Nazi salute". Bra fuckin' vo. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regardless of what Musk is or did, I think he might be right in that Wikipedia is sometimes an extension of traditional media, inasmuch as we often consider citations to said media as "reliable sources", at least in eswiki. Sophivorus (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That is by design and by purpose. Traditional media, including university press and such when we can get it, are our house-gods. This make us wide-open to Professor values, but the internet is vast and there are plenty of other websites. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What irked Musk so much is that Wikipedia is not for sale and there is not enough money he can accrue to buy Wikipedia off. The decision to never allow any advertising on Wikipedia and never sell Wikipedia off really paid off - Wikipedia has no price tag at all. His efforts to prevent donation to Wikipedia will not work either. Most of his base probably never donated to Wikipedia at the first place. And even in the event of massive downturn of donation the cost to run Wikipedia servers are quite low. We can survive with lower donation. Wikipedia isn't run by CEOs or some big suits who earned millions of dollar each year. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]