Requests for comment/Requesting a look into Arabic Wikipedia Bias

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

Dear Wikimedia Foundation Team,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to report significant editorial bias and censorship issues I have encountered on the Arabic Wikipedia platform.

Recently, I made factual and well-documented edits discussing a private school incident in Bahrain (related to LGBT rights) which were repeatedly reverted without clear justification (Proof #1, Proof #2, and here's a similar edit on English Wikipedia and it was not reverted). Additionally, my account has been blocked, preventing further contributions, after I questioned the policy of these admins and made a clear warning that if such behaviour persists I will raise this up to Wikimedia foundation.

There appears to be a systematic pattern of censorship on Arabic Wikipedia, particularly against content that does not align with specific ideological views. Terms such as "الخليج الفارسي" are censored, and topics challenging Islamic or hyper-Arabism values, including LGBT issues, are heavily moderated or removed. This raises serious concerns about freedom of speech and editorial neutrality on the platform.

It is noteworthy that in the Farsi Wikipedia, writing "الخليج العربي" is allowed, which contrasts sharply with the dictatorial nature of Arabic Wikipedia. This discrepancy highlights the lack of consistency and fairness in editorial policies across different language editions of Wikipedia.

Disagreement over collaboration with WP in sub Arabic dialects Here they are upset that people are making Wikipedia projects in their own local Arabic dialects). I fully support these initiatives since most Arabic speakers are not Arabs by blood or genes and have very varied dialects which are mixtures of their past languages and Arabic.

The whole Palestine campaigns plastered over the Wikipedia itself bears shame to the Wikipedia Foundation team as well as Wikipedia projects should avoid being politicized at all costs, however, the Arabic Wikipedia does not seem to understand that.

Reverting updates to Article about ethnic Iranians in Bahrain (Here's the Farsi version for comparison which was met with welcome arms from the Farsi Administration team)

It is worth noting that any edit on Arabic wikipedia doesn't even immediately go online, unless the bots or admins check it, and eventually it gets reverted.

I myself am from Bahrain, however, race wise I am half Achomi (Iranian race) and half Bahrani (indigenous Bahraini). I am completely opposed to these hyper/pan Arabism initiatives that Arabic Wikipedia sysops pull off. It is unfortunate that this language is imposed on us since youth and we have to suffer from its propaganda even online (and from Wikipedia!).

I urge the Wikimedia Foundation to investigate these practices, as they undermine the core values of neutrality and open knowledge. Ensuring that Wikipedia remains a platform for free and open discourse is crucial for its credibility and reliability.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and hope for a resolution that upholds Wikipedia's principles.

Best regards, --Mrox2 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the best position since I do not edit any of these projects, but keep in mind two things here. Firstly, you'll get responses from the community members and not from WMF Team, and second thing I'd like to point out and is very important to your case is that WMF projects are independent of one another. This means if the content, appropriate to one community does not guarantee approval from another. Again, I haven't yet jumped in the details on this case, but seems like you forgot those two aspects. Best, A09|(pogovor) 21:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic is a language that we speak and it encompasses a lot of racial and ethnic backgrounds with various belief systems and political orientations. I believe my complaint is making a fair point which is further affirmed by the links I have linked. Mrox2 (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only thing that matters is if your additions were in line with current arwiki policies and guidelines and whether the removal is justifiable. Arabic being a widely spoken laguage with lots of cultural differences is not a valid argument here. A09|(pogovor) 08:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it’s justifiable if they spread misinformation and disallow factual edits because their own guidelines allow it? This still poses a question on the neutrality of Wikipedia. 167.98.63.114 22:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change the theme, I've asked you something different. Many wikiprojects have a policy in line where verifiability is of higher priority than "truth". And no, per current definition of what neutrality is, this does not pose any question. I will ask again, were your additions in line with current arwiki policies and guidelines? A09|(pogovor) 17:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear A09,

Thank you for your response and for pointing out the key aspects regarding the independent nature of Wikimedia projects and the role of community members in addressing such issues.

To address your points:

Community Responses: I understand that responses come from community members rather than the Wikimedia Foundation Team directly. However, the systemic bias and censorship I am experiencing on the Arabic Wikipedia necessitate higher-level intervention to ensure editorial neutrality and freedom of speech across all language editions.
Independence of WMF Projects: While each Wikimedia project operates independently, the overarching principles of neutrality, verifiability, and freedom of expression should be consistent. The discrepancies in how content related to sensitive topics like LGBT rights and regional terminologies (e.g., "الخليج الفارسي") are handled on Arabic Wikipedia versus Farsi Wikipedia highlight a lack of uniformity in adhering to these principles.

Regarding the compliance of my edits with current arwiki policies and guidelines, I ensured that all contributions were well-documented, verifiable, and aligned with Wikipedia's standards. The reversals seem less about adherence to guidelines and more about ideological censorship, particularly on contentious issues. This is evidenced by the acceptance of similar content on the English Wikipedia, which further indicates that the edits are in line with broader Wikimedia standards.

The fundamental issue here is not just the removal of specific content but the broader pattern of censorship and bias on the Arabic Wikipedia platform. This undermines Wikipedia's core values and compromises its reliability as an open knowledge resource.

I urge the community and the Wikimedia Foundation to review these practices and ensure that all language editions adhere to the principles of neutrality and freedom of information.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best regards, Mrox2 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mrox2, thanks for your further input on this matter. I suggest we both wait for any further input on this presumed problem, preferably from arwiki community members so that they can present their arguments. Best, A09|(pogovor) 20:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm totally unfamiliar with this topic and I don't know Arabic language, but it's obvious that Arabic Wikipedia lacks neutral point of view. I mean, coloring the Wikipedia logo like a flag and placing a banner that says something like "stop killing people" obviously means there's not a neutral point of view, and looks like this wiki needs a global sysop or steward action. RuzDD (talk) 13:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every Wikimedia community is independent and that was the outcome of the request for comment on this matter as well. I don't necessarily agree with arwiki actions taken however any action against arwiki could become precedent for any similar problems in the future, which we should prevent. A09|(pogovor) 17:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: I think the RfC referred to is Requests for comment/Community consensus for blackouts and other advocacy. It was closed

Oppose (by an oposer in the discussion) so you can't comment there, but it is worth a read as it covers the black banner/Palestine campaigns at arwiki discussed above. Commander Keane (talk) 08:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]