- WND - http://www.wnd.com -

Top encyclopedia: Farah is a 'twit, Jew-loving pig'

In the latest of a years-long Wikipedia campaign of hurling smears at WND’s founder, Joseph Farah was characterized as a “Zionist Twit and Jew Loving Pig” on the site that claims to be an online encyclopedia.

This Dec. 30 Wikipedia profile of WorldNetDaily called Joseph Farah a “Zionist Twit and Jew Loving PIg” before it was later removed.

The entry appeared on the WorldNetDaily profile page, which was later changed.

Farah said the anti-Semitic attack is just the most recent in a long series of libelous and defamatory statements about him and his company that have been published by Wikipedia over the last five years.

Sept. 6, 2009, entry describes WND content as “terrorist news” that is devoted to “portraying Islam as Anti-Christ.”

Wikipedia’s profile page for Farah has dubbed him “homophobic,” a “conspiracy theorist,” “white supremacist,” a “proud member of the Ku Klux Klan,” a “religious nutcase” and “a pioneer in the political uses of psychedelics.”

“He also enjoys chowing down on babies once in a while,” stated one Aug. 7, 2008, entry.

“He is also an Arab self-hating, Zionist-supported d—–bag whose slanderous drivel isn’t worth considering,” said an April 2, 2007, edit to Farah’s biography. “Down with WorldNetDaily.”

In this now-deleted April 2, 2007, entry from the Wikipedia profile on Joseph Farah, an editor calls him “an Arab self-hating, Zionist supported d——bag whose slanderous drivel isn’t worth considering.”

Yet another person referenced the Obama eligibility issue in Farah’s career profile, writing, “You are a plague, Farah, a giant wedgie in the slacks of America. You have no business being in media and should disappear from public life. Do you think your legacy will be a proud one? You will be recorded as a fringe provocateur, someone laughed at, someone jokes are built around for historians.”

Last year, Wikipedia introduced Farah like this: “Joseph Francis Farah is an Evangelical Christian American journalist and noted homosexual of Lebanese and Syrian heritage.” There have been dozens of explicit homosexual statements and accusations made in his profile since.

“Previously, the volunteer ‘editors’ at Wikipedia claimed publicly I had an affair with a prominent female syndicated columnist,” Farah said. “Then they characterize me as a ‘noted homosexual.’ Neither one of these accusations has any basis in truth, of course. But truth and accuracy have never been the standard at Wikipedia – at least when it comes to WorldNetDaily.”

Do you have a Wikipedia horror story? Share your first-hand accounts of bias, error, distortion and defamation in WND’s new forum.

Farah said the Wikipedia entries on WorldNetDaily and himself still contain voluminous untruths and are composed in extremely biased ways to cast the most negative light on the leading independent newssite and his personal work.

“But that, of course, is well within Wikipedia’s First Amendment rights,” he said. “Nevertheless, Wikipedia has now demonstrated a long pattern of defamatory attacks on me and my work. We are very close, I believe, to being able to make a strong libel case against this phony ‘free encyclopedia’ viewed by hundreds of millions of people.”

Wikipedia’s policy states, “Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject’s privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people’s lives.”

The online “free encyclopedia,” written and edited by its users, has been considered an unreliable source by teachers, authors, editors, patent examiners, librarians and researchers. As WND reported last year, an immigration judge came under fire after he based part of his ruling on a Wikipedia entry.

WND also reported last year when Wikipedia featured detailed photos of nude homosexual men engaging in sex acts and a variety of other sexually explicit images and content. At that time, Mark Pelligrini, regional representative for Wikipedia, told WND, “Wikipedia’s goal is to provide an encyclopedia that contains the sum of all human knowledge. To that end, Wikipedia does not censor objectionable material.”

In August 2009, Wikipedia announced it would seek to impose more discipline with restrictions on article editing.

According to the Associated Press, the website tested pages that “won’t register changes unless they are approved by an experienced Wikipedia editor.” The website claimed the new restrictions would apply to biographies of living people within a “few weeks” of testing.

However, dozens of apparently blatant, malicious edits have been made to profiles of Farah and WND since August.

Wikipedia has little criteria for “experienced editor” status – and allows anyone who has been registered for just a few days to approve changes, the Associated Press reported.

Meanwhile, a debate about controversial statements in the Farah and WND profiles has been raging at Wikipedia on its behind-the-scenes talk page. The website’s own editors have made the following comments:

Note: Concerned individuals may contact the Wikimedia Foundation. Share your own Wikipedia horror stories in WND’s new forum.

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact us.

If you would like to sound off on this issue, participate in today’s WND Poll.