Chelsea Schilling is a commentary editor and staff writer for WND and a proud U.S. Army veteran. She has also worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news reporter for the Sacramento Union.More ↓Less ↑
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.
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.
On Dec. 29, 2009, Farah’s profile began with: “Joseph Farah is an American author, journalist and editor-in-chief of the conservative website WorldNetDaily (WND). He is a known [expletive] sucker.”
A Dec. 12, 2009, Wikipedia entry read, “WorldNetDaily is an [sic] far-right American online web site that publishes editorials from a Christian conservative and pro-white point of view.”
On Nov. 16, 2009, Farah’s Wikipedia profile stated: “It is a widely known rumour [sic] that Mr. Farah is a closet homosexual and has been repeatedly criticized for his hypocrisy.”
On Oct. 10, 2009, WND was dubbed “an American independent article and editorial based online tabloid that publishes from a radical right wing point of view.”
On Sept. 6, 2009, Wikipedia described WND as this: “WorldNetDaily is a terrorist news- and editorial-based publishing news and opinion from a Republican or conservative point of view. Founded in May 1997 with the unstated intentions of devoting 70% coverage to portraying Islam as Anti-Christ to fulfil [sic] the armaagedon [sic] and rapture fantasies that most of its founders carry, and with the stated intentions of “exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power.”
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.”
“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.”
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.”
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:
I just want to say that the article you had about him was defamatory. … It seems that when I look up right of center personalities there is always something extreme about them. But when I look up someone like “Al Franken” he is made out to be mainstream. This is unfair.
Being a bisexual socialist, I can say with all certainty that I despise everything WND stands for. However, this article does seem a bit biased against him. I would normally expect people of his type to be fairly far-right, but this seems a bit extreme. Some sources would be appreciated, if you are able to get a hold of any.
[C]harges of racism and extreme adherence to Republican agendas need to be documented before accusations can be leveled. When reading through Worldnetdaily.com, I found the articles to be as equally critical of President Bush as they are of other topics.
This article is so obviously biased it is sickening, and this is coming from a staunch conservative. Unless somebody can submit a neutral article, this one should be deleted.
It’s a tricky situation, and while the guy is probably basically a conspiracy theorist, in cases such as this, particularly when we have issues of BLP [biographies of living persons] and a history of potentially libelous problems with the article, it’s better to err on the side of caution.
I heard he was gay. I tried to add this to the article, but it got reverted and I got warned. Could someone run down a reference on it and add it back to the article, please?
Typical lefties at Wiki added every unsourced negative thing they could find to this article. Why don’t you guys go tell the truth on the [New York Times] article? Left and Jihadi-infested Wiki. How far you’ve fallen.