April 7, 2026
STAY INFORMED – TALKING POINTS – ACTIONS TO CONSIDER
Wikipedia is one of the most trusted sources of information in the world – and it is consistently manipulated. What appears to be neutral, crowdsourced knowledge often is shaped by a small number of highly active, anonymous editors who control narratives on controversial topics. This editorial influence does not stay on Wikipedia – it spreads through search engines, media coverage and almost all AI systems, forming a pipeline of disinformation that quietly shapes what billions of people believe.
The Gang of 40 Controls What Billions Read
A small group of very active and biased Wikipedia editors has spent years shaping how billions of people understand global events, Israel and Jewish identity. Known as the “Gang of 40,” they dominate important pages, control which news sources are accepted and remove views that challenge their ideological framing.
The hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia editors are supposed to be volunteers who create new encyclopedia entries and make edits, additions or changes to existing articles in their fields of expertise. However, many editors are actually activists – not neutral contributors – and even paid by foreign governments, non-profit organizations and specialized PR firms.
Some editors openly display ideological positions on their user profiles. Prominent editor Abo Yemen “wants Israel to be kicked out of the UN” and replaced by a Palestinian state – but yet remains an active Wikipedia editor on the Middle East.
The Gang of 40 has collectively made millions of false or malicious changes to pages and often rewrites entire sections related to Judaism, Israel and the Middle East, according to investigative reporting by Ashley Rindsberg. These highly coordinated editors dominate many important and contested pages – including high-traffic pages with millions of annual views – a stark contrast to Wikipedia’s portrayal as a welcoming, democratic community.
Some of the G40 have been involved in discussions on the topic entry about last year’s terror attack on a Hanukkah event in Australia – the terrorists murdered 15 innocent people at Bondi Beach. Wikipedia editors have pushed back against calling it a terror attack and directly linking it to radical Islam – even though the perpetrators had an Islamic State flag in their car.
Disciplinary action has been very limited. Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee – its highest-ranking authority – banned G40 kingpin Iskandar323 in January. This editor led the charge to successfully downgrade the Anti-Defamation League – a leading Jewish American civil rights organization – as a source. Even before Oct. 7 attacks, Iskandar edited pages on Iran, Hamas, Islamic terrorism, antisemitism and Jewish history – including rewriting Jewish history as Palestinian history.
Iskandar deleted a long list of proven facts, including:
Rewriting Jewish Identity
The Wikipedia page on Zionism is not just an article – it is a gateway definition for millions of readers trying to understand Jewish self-determination. How it is framed shapes how readers understand the legitimacy, history and purpose of the Jewish state. Google searches and ChatGPT responses almost always rely on Wikipedia as their primary information source – magnifying the impact of Wikipedia’s disinformation.
The Gang of 40 has spent years enforcing its preferred false narrative on this page – especially after the Oct. 7 atrocities against Israel. The introduction emphasizes ‘settler colonialism’ and language that implies ‘ethnic cleansing’ – setting the tone for the entire article.
This framing is reinforced through selective sourcing and emphasis. Sources that support critical interpretations – including anti-Israel activists, academics and authors – are repeatedly cited, while others are minimized or excluded. Over time, this creates a fixed narrative in which Zionism is presented less as a diverse historical movement and more as a singular political project defined primarily by its critics. The Wikipedia page stands in stark contrast to the Grokipedia page on Zionism that relies on different sources and produces significantly different framing.
Related pages on Judaism and Israel, often created and controlled by the same biased anonymous editors, reinforce these claims – conferring contested and ideological claims the appearance of established fact. Editors minimized or deleted sources that support the historical connection between Jews and the Land of Israel. Iskandar323 removed a genetic study supporting Jewish ancestry, calling the analysis “extremely hotly disputed.”
Different Language, Different Reality: Arabic Wikipedia
The problem does not stop with the English language Wikipedia. The platform operates in 361 languages and the content is not consistent across them. Some pages mirror the English version, while others present radically different realities.
Arabic Wikipedia presents overtly one-sided narratives that reflect a uniform ideological perspective. It describes Nazi mass murderer Adolf Hitler as a political leader who made questionable decisions: “Hitler remains a globally controversial figure, with the media often highlighting his negative aspects, most notably his antisemitism. However, Hitler also had some positive qualities.” Additionally, the English-language Hitler page contains a section on the Holocaust while the Arabic page does not.
Arabic pages related to Hamas and the Oct. 7 Hamas massacres use similar language that downplays terrorism, glorifies Hamas and shifts the focus toward political framing and terrorist-driven propaganda – differing sharply from how those events are described even in the problematic English-language articles. The ADL report – Editing for Hate: How Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish Bias Undermines Wikipedia’s Neutrality – documents this and other forms of bias.
The System Shapes the Narrative: Iran, Qatar and False ‘Consensus’
For many uncontroversial topics – ranging from birthdates of musicians to sports information and biographies of most historical figures – are generally accurate and unbiased. But Wikipedia editors also have displayed biased, inaccurate and negative citations about corporations and even non-profit organizations.
Hostile regimes and activist networks do not need to control Wikipedia outright – they only need to influence what sources are accepted and how information is framed.
Government and activist organizations have engaged in coordinated efforts to manipulate content. Qatar previously hired a PR firm to improve its image and recently invested in the company behind Grokipedia. Tech for Palestine and similar activist groups have trained individuals to coordinate edits.
This influence is not theoretical. Wikipedia editors have used about 100,000 Iranian propaganda references – including from its state-controlled media and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – across multiple language versions of Wikipedia. Replacing terms like “terrorist” with “resistance fighter” and “regime” with “government” changes how the conflict is understood.
These decisions have real consequences. Wikipedia editors have used approved sources – and university academics – to conclude that Israel has committed a ‘genocide’ in Gaza, while resisting efforts to apply the same label to Hamas for its Oct. 7 massacres. Hamas is an Iran-backed terrorist group dedicated to murdering all Jews. Wikipedia editors use the same tactics for including or excluding images – reinforcing the same narratives.
Sources that do not align with preferred anti-Western, anti-American and anti-Israel narratives often are labeled unreliable or excluded, while others are elevated and repeatedly cited. Al Jazeera – founded and funded by the Qatari government – is treated as “generally reliable.” The same applies to human rights organization Amnesty International – which changed the accepted definitions of ‘genocide’ and ‘apartheid’ to brand Israel. Most sources associated with the political left are rated “reliable” while their counterparts are “unreliable” – shaping how events are framed before articles are even written.
At the editorial level, the Gang of 40 maintains control through consistent, repeatable tactics: article deletion, omission of key information and cherry-picked sources. Edits that challenge their framing are quickly reversed and their preferred version of events becomes deeply embedded. Even when some editors received temporary topic bans, most of their edits remained in place.
Investigative reporter Rindsberg described how – after the banning of Iskandar323 – the issue extends beyond any single editor:
“The mechanisms that enabled years of systematic narrative manipulation remain intact and are largely invisible to the platform’s hundreds of millions of users. Wikipedia’s power lies in its perceived neutrality. When that neutrality is compromised, the consequences extend far beyond any single article.”
From Wikipedia to AI: How Narratives Spread
Wikipedia receives 300 billion annual page views – about 10,000 per second – and its distorted narratives are increasingly embedded in news coverage, search engines and artificial intelligence systems. On its recent 25th anniversary, Wikipedia announced content partnerships with major AI companies – including Amazon, Meta and Microsoft – despite its editors acknowledging that “Wikipedia is not a reliable source.”
At the same time, AI models are trained on vast amounts of publicly available text – with Wikipedia among their most heavily trusted sources. Systems like ChatGPT, Gemini and Claude – as well as Google searches – often reflect this content in their responses. This boosts Wikipedia’s outsized influence over how information is presented. This is especially alarming for younger users who increasingly rely on AI tools and quick search results without checking underlying sources.
This influence extends across languages. AI systems are trained on multilingual content – especially for use in their native languages. Content shaped on Wikipedia in any language can rapidly spread through translation, news media and digital platforms.
Wikipedia’s influence is massive – but it requires scrutiny. Readers, educators and organizations can take steps to limit the spread of distorted narratives and demand greater accountability.
Stay Informed | Speak Up | Take Action
Want to Read More of Our Talking Points? Did you miss a recent edition of The Focus Project? No need to search your inbox. Our most recently published editions are available on our website.
This content is developed by The Focus Project in partnership with MERCAZ USA. The Focus Project distributes weekly news and talking points on timely issues concerning Israel and the Jewish people, including antisemitism, anti-Zionism and the delegitimization of Israel. It represents a consensus view across a spectrum of major American Jewish organizations. MERCAZ USA recognizes and respects the diversity of views on these issues among its readers and the community at large.