'Pandemonium' at Wikipedia over Gaza Genocide Article
Co-founders Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger share criticism of the hotly contested entry. Chaos ensues.
More than two decades after launching Wikipedia together, Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger have reunited. This time, however, it’s not so much in partnership but to protest Wikipedia’s take on one of the biggest geopolitical flashpoints today: allegations that Israel committed genocide in Gaza.
In a remarkable Wikipedia moment—the likes of which hasn’t been seen for over a decade—the co-founders of the online encyclopedia have expressed their disappointment with the highly contested article.
This has set off an extraordinary firestorm inside Wikipedia, with one editor telling NPOV that the response has been “pandemonium,” and characterizing the atmosphere surrounding these events as one of “major fear.”
Things have spiraled so far out of control that Wikipedia editors have referred Wales for disciplinary action in an attempt to have him banned from editing in that space
The sequence of events began on Sunday when Wales, under his “Jimbo” handle, weighed in on the “Gaza genocide” article’s Talk page. Wales wrote in his 400-word-long statement:
I was asked [about the article] point-blank in a high profile media interview about this article, and I answered with transparency and honesty: this article fails to meet our high standards and needs immediate attention.
In his statement, Wales calls the “Gaza genocide” article “particularly egregious.” He cites its opening sentence, which declares in “wikivoice,” Wikipedia’s own voice (and not as a summary of other opinions) that genocide in Gaza is a fact:
The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people…
The article is now the battleground of an intense edit war, with editors taking the lead out of wikivoice, while others putting it back, all within minutes of each other.
Tensions in Wikipedia’s community were already running high over this highly public intervention. But, with Sanger’s entrance, the Talk page discussion has transcended the “Gaza genocide” discussion, and now touches on Wikipedia’s future as the world’s leading online encyclopedia.
“Glad to see User:Jimbo_Wales weighing in here—and we agree!” Sanger wrote. “I’m not sure when the last time was that the two co-founders were able to agree about something. So that’s great.”
Sanger went on to offer his own pointed criticism about the article, writing:
By simply declaring in wikivoice ‘The genocidal acts include mass killings,’…Wikipedia is taking one side in an ongoing dispute. This is contrary to Wikipedia’s long-standing rules about neutrality, which require Wikipedia not to take sides in such disputes.
Sanger’s statement takes on even greater significance in light of his “Nine Theses”—a series of essays he nailed to the proverbial door of Wikipedia in late September. Each of the essays focuses on one of the major flaws of the site, as Sanger sees it.
In his “Gaza genocide” response, Sanger reiterates a number of the key arguments from the Nine Theses, including the first essay, “End decision-making by ‘consensus’.” In that essay, Sanger argues:
Wikipedia’s policy of deciding editorial disputes by working toward a “consensus” position is absurd. Its notion of “consensus” is an institutional fiction, supported because it hides legitimate dissent under a false veneer of unanimity.
Sanger underlines this idea in his response to the “Gaza genocide” article, writing:
A consensus formed against the views of many people and in contradiction of fundamental policy is illegitimate. Some have maintained that the [“Gaza genocide”] article reflects a “consensus.” As I have argued, this sort of controversial sides-taking can articulate only an ersatz consensus, never a genuine consensus.
Sanger’s point is that a “neutrality dispute should never be an attempt to determine which side is correct, or which side has the right to assert its views.” Rather, the idea is that Wikipedia should present all relevant and significant views on a topic so “readers may make up their minds for themselves.”
In the case of the “Gaza genocide” article, Wikipedia has clearly taken a position. However, as I’ve reported extensively on Wikipedia’s positions on Israel and Palestine, this is not an exception. In October 2024, I exposed a group of anti-Israel editors—the “Gang of 40”—who, working in small clusters, have made over 1 million edits to around 10,000 articles in the Palestine Israel Articles (PIA) topic area.
More recently, I covered the successful effort staged by a number of Gang of 40 leaders to alter the lead section of the article on “Zionism” and then lock that article with a “moratorium,” which has rarely (if ever) been employed in this significant a context.
The reunion (of sorts) between Wales and Sanger carries a strong emotional resonance. It’s a powerful moment: Wales, Wikipedia’s most skilled storyteller who shepherded the site from nascency to its current status as global knowledge powerhouse; and Sanger, a trained philosopher who developed many of Wikipedia’s core conceptual machinery, like its neutrality policy, aligning on what might very well be the most fiery issue on the site today.
Despite this, the founders’ comments triggered an eruption on the Talk:Gaza genocide page, with editors openly accusing one another of bias. Some agreed with the founders. “It’s a bad look when both co-founders call out the article,” wrote one. “That means the article has a serious problem.” Another, SuperPianoMan9167, added: “It’s not our job to call out Israel’s injustices.”
But others pushed back sharply. One editor accused Wales and Sanger of misunderstanding policy: “Articles must not take sides,” they wrote, “but they must explain the sides fairly and without bias.”
Another user, Gotitbro, warned that adopting Sanger’s interpretation of neutrality as representing all sides of an issue (rather than forcing an artificial compromise-consensus) “would likely split Wikipedia entirely,” since it could require rewriting articles on topics such as climate change or race. “If Larry and Jimmy want they can change NPOV to what they are suggesting here (the latter though would likely split WP entirely). Ultimately, I think both of the co-founders are wrong here.”
Amid the rancor, a more chilling thread emerged: fear that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) might step in. Editors worried Wales’s comments could blur his role as founder with the foundation’s authority.
“It feels very improper for the WMF to be intervening here due to political pressure,” StereoFolic wrote. Another, Aquillion, warned that by invoking the foundation’s “NPOV Working Group,” Wales had “indirectly involved the WMF in a content dispute.”
Late Tuesday saw a major escalation when one editor brought an ANI (Administrators’ Noticeboard/Incidents), or request for disciplinary action, against Wales requesting he receive a topic ban. Editors allege that Wales’s involvement in the topic is motivated by self-promotion, citing stalled sales of his book, published last week.
More substantively, editors invoked a number of Wikipedia quasi-policies, including Wikipedia:Drop the stick (a reference to beating a dead horse). One user involved in the ANI wrote:
As editors have pointed out, it took the community months of debate, analysing sources and weighing viewpoints to come to a consensus for the Gaza genocide article. Now Jimbo comes barging in like a bull in a china shop, pulling rank “This message is from me, Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia.”, demanding that consensus be overturned, while lecturing the community on neutrality.
All of this unfolds at what is, no doubt, the most significant moment of crisis for Wikipedia. Only days ago, Elon Musk launched Grokipedia, the first major direct competitor to the site in its two-decade-long history. The congressional investigation at the Oversight Committee is proceeding, regulation in the UK could present a devastating blow to the site’s ability to operate there, and, only this summer, Wikimedia Foundation lost a landmark defamation case in a European court.
Wikimedia Foundation is, if not leaderless, then at least in a period of major transition as its CEO and executive director, Marya Iskander, announced her resignation in May. (Iskander plans to remain at Wikipedia until early 2026.)
Still, the appearance of the co-founders on the same Talk page offer a ray of, if not hope, then at least possibility. It’s as if, after twenty-three years, Sanger’s Nine Theses not only precipitated a change, but were also born from the shifting cultural dynamics surrounding Wikipedia at this moment.
Either way, some form of dialog between the two founders—and the differing philosophical and operational perspectives embodied by each—could not have come at a better time.
NPOV will be launching a major investigation in coming weeks. Subscribe below to stay informed. If you’re already a subscriber, please share this post.
Wiki is a cultural marxist online trash collection..
Thank you for reporting this.