PDA

View Full Version : Anti-Muslim/Islam bias on Wikipedia- You can do something about it!



kahmed
06-09-2006, 06:49 PM
There's a very active and malevolent campaign on Wikipedia to spread anti-Muslim sentiment. It’s done by passionate individuals (mostly Americans and Jews) who edit articles using highly partisan and questionable sources (Daniel Pipes, Bat Ye’or, etc). This really needs to be looked at by willing and informed Muslims, given the popularity of the site and how many are trusting and using it as a reliable source of information. Check out sites listed on the Muslim Guild talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...Guild/Articles

Please don't allow the deliberate spread of misinformation to go unanswered.

There are some simple tactics one can use to solve the problem. Firstly, a good numbers representing our perspective needs to be involved. Any change should be subtle- so subtle that the admins on Wikipedia won't even know the editor is Muslim. Choose an anglo-sounding ID. Peters and Toms and Johns and Jerrys. It has to be a unique one too, not one that is used on message boards or groups. Why the evasion? Because some of the admins who have the ability to ban users have their own biases against Muslims. I've seen that first hand.

I'm all for the whole Neutral Point Of View character of Wikipedia. The problem is that those who malevolently try to spread misinformation regarding Muslims are clever. They're subtle. They pretend to be acting in the interest of intellectual honesty and critical inquiry. Their pattern of behavior, including deletions of opposing views prove their actual objective. We can play the same game, but Muslims tend to be lazy. When confronted with some absurd accusation of being an Islamist or fundementalist, they tend to cower. In all this, I'm more frustrated with the response from knowlegeble Muslims than anything else.

So please..Participate. Think of it as an alternative to playing a video game. A real life RTS game with actual implications.

It can be corrected.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Umar001
06-09-2006, 06:57 PM
Hmm Im not gonna do that for the simple fact I dont like lying
Reply

HeiGou
06-09-2006, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by kahmed
There are some simple tactics one can use to solve the problem. Firstly, a good numbers representing our perspective needs to be involved. Any change should be subtle- so subtle that the admins on Wikipedia won't even know the editor is Muslim. Choose an anglo-sounding ID. Peters and Toms and Johns and Jerrys. It has to be a unique one too, not one that is used on message boards or groups. Why the evasion? Because some of the admins who have the ability to ban users have their own biases against Muslims. I've seen that first hand.
Oh come on. This is needless paranoia. Muslims do get short shrift some times but mainly because their English is too poor and their rage too strong to make a case for what they want. Be yourself. Be open about what you think is wrong. Make whatever changes you like. But be prepared to defend them. If you can't then it doesn't matter what your ID is.

So please..Participate. Think of it as an alternative to playing a video game. A real life RTS game with actual implications.

It can be corrected.
By all means, take part and correct article if you like.
Reply

Woodrow
06-09-2006, 07:14 PM
Originally Posted by IsaAbdullah
Hmm Im not gonna do that for the simple fact I dont like lying
I have to agree. Lying is wrong and it is far better that we be have bad things said about us, while we are truthfull, then for us to have good things said because we deceive.

This is the paragraph in the OP I feel is wrong.

"There are some simple tactics one can use to solve the problem. Firstly, a good numbers representing our perspective needs to be involved. Any change should be subtle- so subtle that the admins on Wikipedia won't even know the editor is Muslim. Choose an anglo-sounding ID. Peters and Toms and Johns and Jerrys. It has to be a unique one too, not one that is used on message boards or groups. Why the evasion? Because some of the admins who have the ability to ban users have their own biases against Muslims. I've seen that first hand"

That is not being tactfull, that is deceit.

A better more honest approach would be to edit with our true identity. Post the edit in a truthfull manner.

Using a falsehood to say the truth, is still a lie. In my opinion. Astragfirullah
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
SirZubair
06-09-2006, 07:21 PM
Originally Posted by kahmed
Please don't allow the deliberate spread of misinformation to go unanswered.
Bugger that,forget about a website spreading lies,..who is going to stop all the muslims out there that continously twist the words of Allah s.w.t ?

At the end of the day,we need to fix our OWN people before we expect the rest of the world to smarten up.

wa'salaam
Reply

Umar001
06-09-2006, 07:21 PM
Yea man think about it, if words spreads that Muslims tried to change it but then were banned

Then a honest truth seeker would try find out why and would inevitebly see something was wrong with what happend, and would delve into the truth more.

But if you lie and that comes out.

A non-muslim would be like, some muslims used fake names to try change some information, hmm, and then would check the info and see a bad side and put it together with the fact the muslim lied.

Personally, I dont see how one can propugate the message that the Truth is Here and Falsehood shall perish.

Through lieing, in this manner.
Reply

kahmed
06-09-2006, 07:25 PM
This is silly. An ID isn't a name, and virtually nobody uses their own name as their ID. You can choose "Banana Split". The only reason I suggest an ID that's not obviously Islamic is because obviously Muslims ARE targets for bans by some admins. As I said, I know this first hand. Exposing your religious identity has never been a requirement on Wikipedia, and as such choosing a non-muslim-related ID is not deception at all.

Beyond that, I'm certainly not asking anyone here to be dishonest in their editing. Wikipedia has its sets of rules and guidelines regarding verifiability of information, citations, and what not. The existence of rules doesnt guarantee their enforcement though. Cited, verified corrections get deleted only because they imply something positive of the Muslim perspective.Uncited personal opinions remain because they reflect a negative image of Muslims. Here's the kind of disinformation being spread: that Muhammad was a pedophile, that the Qur'an is anti-semetic because it describes Abraham and a Muslim and that he was not a Jew, that in Islam it is permissible to rape one's slave (yes, the word rape is used). I'm not asking anyone to take part in deception, I'm asking them to set the record straight. The "Dhimmi" article makes no mention of the freedoms and rights Jews enjoyed, particularly relative to their experiences in Europe. It only portrays them as victims to Muslim victimization. If you have any knowlege and if you can write, use your ability, in your spare time, to correct such misinformation. Don't lie. Don't portray yourself as a one-sided biased editor. Use sources.

Now my response to your responses.

IsaAbdullah and Woodrow, you play your holier than thou card and insist on playing it light when it comes to the actions of people you haven't even observed yet. You had no reservations in assuming that I was encouraging you to lie, and that I was encouraging you to spread lies on Wikipedia.

SirZubair, can one not assume responsibility for the actions of his own people while protecting them from attackers at the same time? I'm a vocal activist against Islamists and exploitation of Muslims from within. I'm a vocal critic of the so-called Islamic countries. Why do you assume that one who speaks up against a non-muslim aggressor is automatically defensive when it comes to the offenses within? What makes you think one problem needs to be tackled before the other?

HeiGou, make the effort to understand the situation before commenting. It's easy enough to click a link. Go there are read first, then respond back to me. On Wikipedia, numbers matter. Consensus matters. The majority of editors on Islamic and Muslim-related topics are Americans and Jews (not that I have anything against Jews, they identify themselves as that on their pages).


Don't give me your holier than thou "its better to be persecuted than to be dishonest". Muslims are being subject to persecution in this country for no other reason than that so-called Muslims such as yourself refuse to stand up for anything. A silent minority that takes whatever treatment is given to them. The best response to a bully is always to fight back. Sit back and take it, and the bully recognizes that you're a target he can continually harrass without ever being held responsible. What persecution Muslims face, be it as subject to foreigners or from Islamists within, is MUCH to be blamed on the apathy of Muslims such as yourselves. It's clear none of you tried to read what's actually on Wikipedia before responding to me. You took the easy route of assuming that I want you to 'decieve' and 'lie'.
Reply

HeiGou
06-09-2006, 07:39 PM
Originally Posted by kahmed
This is silly. An ID isn't a name. You can choose "Banana Split". The only reason I suggest an ID that's not obviously Islamic is because Muslims ARE targets for bans by some admins. As I said, I know this first hand.
I some how doubt that, but what does it matter? Think anyone will be fooled for long?

Beyond that, I'm certainly not asking anyone here to be dishonest in their editing. Here's the kind of disinformation being spread: that Muhammad was a pedophile,
Where does it say that? What I can find this is,

Family life

Main article: Muhammad's marriages

From 595 to 619, Muhammad had only one wife, Khadijah. After her death, he married Sawda bint Zama and Aisha (which marriage came first is disputed), then Hafsa. Later he was to marry more wives, for a total of eleven (nine or ten living at the time of his death). (The status of Maria al-Qibtiyya is also disputed; she may have been a slave, a freed slave, or a wife.)

Muhammad had children by only two of these unions. Khadijah is said to have born him four daughters and a son; only one daughter, Fatima, survived her father. Shi'a Muslims dispute the number of Muhammad's children, claiming that he had only one daughter, and that the other "daughters" were step-daughters. Maria al-Qibtiyya bore him a son, but the child died when he was ten months old.

Muhammad's marriages have been the subject of much criticism. Some consider it wrong that he had more wives than the four generally allowed by the Qur'an (although one Quranic verse makes an exception for Muhammad). They question the circumstances of some of his marriages, such as his marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh, his adopted son's ex-wife, who according to hadith was nine years old when the marriage was consummated.

That sounds eminently reasonable to me and I think it contains nothing a Muslim would find objectionable - look I am even prepared to post it where it will get me a ban. Am I wrong? I don't see the "p" word at any rate.

that the Qur'an is anti-semetic because it describes Abraham and a Muslim and that he was not a Jew,
Well I can't find that but what is the objection? It does describe Abraham. It does claim he was a Muslim. It does claim he was not a Jew. You don't think Jews have a right to be offended by that claim? Who is to judge the insult apart from the person on the other end?

that in Islam it is permissible to rape one's slave (yes, the word rape is used).
Well there is an obvious response but I'll pass.

The "Dhimmi" article makes no mention of the freedoms and rights Jews enjoyed, particularly relative to their experiences in Europe.
What do you think is missing from that article?
Reply

kahmed
06-09-2006, 08:11 PM
Read and find out. It's work enough dealing with anti-Muslim bigots, I don't have room on my plate for dealing with I-love-America-please-accept-me Muslims as well. There are many articles making many claims. I'm just asking that Muslims participate to give the Muslim perspective a fair shake. Apparently there are no Muslims here. Just approval-seekers.
Reply

Woodrow
06-09-2006, 08:58 PM
"IsaAbdullah and Woodrow, you play your holier than thou card and insist on playing it light when it comes to the actions of people you haven't even observed yet. You had no reservations in assuming that I was encouraging you to lie, and that I was encouraging you to spread lies on Wikipedia."

I have no doubt that your intentions are good. Perhaps it is in the manner they were presented. This is what I took issue with:

"There are some simple tactics one can use to solve the problem. Firstly, a good numbers representing our perspective needs to be involved. Any change should be subtle- so subtle that the admins on Wikipedia won't even know the editor is Muslim. Choose an anglo-sounding ID. Peters and Toms and Johns and Jerrys. It has to be a unique one too, not one that is used on message boards or groups. Why the evasion? Because some of the admins who have the ability to ban users have their own biases against Muslims. I've seen that first hand"

I may be misunderstanding, but does that not sound like you were requesting us to evade something? Looking at your later post, I doubt now that was your intent. Perhaps, because of our age differences we perceive words differently.
Reply

wilberhum
06-09-2006, 10:55 PM
Please past a link to one of the articles that contains a lie. If I find anything that I know is wrong. I will comment on it. I always here how bad Wikipedia is but no one ever gives an example or link.
Reply

Immunity
06-09-2006, 11:31 PM
Wikipedia is not anti-Islamic. It has bias towards all faith, including Judaism and Christianity. This campaign will only make Islam look bad.
Reply

Skillganon
06-10-2006, 12:22 AM
Well wikepedia, is not much of a scholarly site. One must have to be literally dum, to take wikpedia as a seriouse source. If I reference wikpedia in my essay I will probably end up getting a lower score than normal.

Some of this article, do however do show the much of the author's own opinion by circumventing it by using constant quote's from other people's statement. Which is not much scholarly in the first place.
Reply

kahmed
06-10-2006, 01:45 AM
Skill, the majority of Americans thought Saddam was directly responsible for 911, up through 2005. Most can't locate India on a world map. Do you think they'd have qualms using Wikipedia as if it were a real encyclopedia? Most Americans think Fox News is a reliable source of news. Wikipedia is free, it's popular. The fact that it's not credible doesn't make much of a difference. Media is a powerful means of controlling public opinion, and it's the weapon of choice of those who'd love to curtail our rights. American Muslims in particular should feel ashamed that they chose to do nothing to shift public opinion away from supporting this war. The American Muslim is an embarrasment. To Islam, to the Ummah, to God.

Anyway, I just came looking to see if my post got any more responses. Apparently this board is populated by the Daniel-Pipes-approved variety of Muslims. I want nothing to do with you people...Adios.
Reply

Woodrow
06-10-2006, 01:52 AM
Originally Posted by kahmed
Skill, the majority of Americans thought Saddam was directly responsible for 911, up through 2005. Most can't locate India on a world map. Do you think they'd have qualms using Wikipedia as if it were a real encyclopedia? Most Americans think Fox News is a reliable source of news. Wikipedia is free, it's popular. The fact that it's not credible doesn't make much of a difference. Media is a powerful means of controlling public opinion, and it's the weapon of choice of those who'd love to curtail our rights. American Muslims in particular should feel ashamed that they chose to do nothing to shift public opinion away from supporting this war. The American Muslim is an embarrasment. To Islam, to the Ummah, to God.

Anyway, I just came looking to see if my post got any more responses. Apparently this board is populated by the Daniel-Pipes-approved variety of Muslims. I want nothing to do with you people...Adios.
Perhaps if you have the perseverence and strength to stick around, we could all learn from you. Please keep in mind many of us here are recent reverts to Islam and there are also quite a few non-Muslims seeking to learn more about us.

You probably have much to offer. Perhaps all of us may not agree with you, but we are willing to listen and if we disagree it can be with respect.
Reply

kahmed
06-11-2006, 03:44 AM
You can't learn your way out of apathy.
Reply

Salad_Fingers
06-11-2006, 04:00 AM
Kahmed, I can't tell you how much I sympathize with you. Where are you from? You are Moslem, aren't you.

I'd really, really like for you to drop me an email. There are some things I'd really like to discuss.

salad_fingers_fan@yahoo.com
Reply

Looking4Peace
06-11-2006, 04:00 AM
well not to be silly but i have a very anglo sounding name, i am born and raised in the usa with a european father, so if i went on there with my name and my perspective on Islam as a muslim i wouldnt be lying.
Reply

sevgi
06-11-2006, 12:43 PM
Im Bored
Reply

czgibson
06-11-2006, 12:56 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by kahmed
Wikipedia is free, it's popular. The fact that it's not credible doesn't make much of a difference.
Show us the evidence.

If you think you've found incorrect information on wikipedia, and that you know better, then edit it. That's the whole idea.

Anyway, I just came looking to see if my post got any more responses. Apparently this board is populated by the Daniel-Pipes-approved variety of Muslims. I want nothing to do with you people...Adios.
What kind of nonsense is this? You've made your decision that quickly? (In case you haven't noticed, several of the people responding to you aren't Muslims at all - e.g. me).

Peace
Reply

wilberhum
06-12-2006, 04:40 PM
I find it strange many say how bad Wikipedia is but when you ask for an example no one ever responds.
Reply

Immunity
06-12-2006, 04:44 PM
Originally Posted by wilberhum
I find it strange many say how bad Wikipedia is but when you ask for an example no one ever responds.
The OP posted a link. I find it strange that you cant read from it.
Reply

wilberhum
06-12-2006, 06:19 PM
Immunity
I did read. So please point out where Wikipedia is wrong and say what would be correct. Otherwise I just see empty complaints.
Reply

Ansar Al-'Adl
06-12-2006, 08:36 PM
Actually, the fact that wikipedia is not a good source on Islam isn't disputed - several of their articles are headed with warnings that the neutrality and factuality of the article is disputed, such as the one on anti-semitism, politics, islamism, science, etc.
Meanwhile, others request a complete re-write or attention from experts, such as the article on jurisprudence, "islamic extremist terrorism", or women in islam.

The latter is a perfect example of the massive distortions as the majority of the article is devoted to domestic violence, war captives and honor killings, as if this is somehow a good representation of Islam's teachings on women! And it gets worse - if you say anything that reflects positively on Islam in even the slightest way, they remove your edition and claim that it wasn't 'neutral'; I tried to fix up their articles a long time ago, but they didn't allow it. And so their articles on Islam will never improve because they are governed by bigots who have no education in Islamic teahcings, while those who do are silenced. They give the most attention not to the central issues of Islam, but to whatever the latest anti-islamic allegations are in the west. So it is not so simple as just "go edit it" if there is a problem in the article - your edition must be approved by a hundred ignorant bigots in order to survive.
Reply

Syed Nizam
06-13-2006, 07:38 AM
[BANANA]Way to go, bro Ansar[/BANANA]
Reply

syilla
06-13-2006, 08:23 AM
Originally Posted by Skillganon
Well wikepedia, is not much of a scholarly site. One must have to be literally dum, to take wikpedia as a seriouse source. If I reference wikpedia in my essay I will probably end up getting a lower score than normal.

Some of this article, do however do show the much of the author's own opinion by circumventing it by using constant quote's from other people's statement. Which is not much scholarly in the first place.
oh i never know that.

Next time I won't put wikpedia ref. Don't want to get low score.
Reply

north_malaysian
06-13-2006, 08:31 AM
Originally Posted by syilla
oh i never know that.

Next time I won't put wikpedia ref. Don't want to get low score.
The reason why I dont like wikipedia .. because it can be edited by like everyone.

I could even write an article like "Germany is the World Cup 2006 winner" in wikipedia.
Reply

HeiGou
06-13-2006, 08:46 AM
Originally Posted by Ansar Al-'Adl
Actually, the fact that wikipedia is not a good source on Islam isn't disputed - several of their articles are headed with warnings that the neutrality and factuality of the article is disputed, such as the one on anti-semitism, politics, islamism, science, etc.
Meanwhile, others request a complete re-write or attention from experts, such as the article on jurisprudence, "islamic extremist terrorism", or women in islam.
Well it is a little more complex than that. Anyone can add a tag saying that the neutrality and factuality of an article is disputed. In effect what that means is not that the article is not a good source, but that the contents are disputed among editors. In this case it is likely that the dispute is between Muslims who want to give an article an acceptable spin and people who do not like what the Muslims have to say. Wikipedia has some angry Dhimmis.

The complete re-write is usually a sign that someone whose first language is not English (or even second) has written the article.

The latter is a perfect example of the massive distortions as the majority of the article is devoted to domestic violence, war captives and honor killings, as if this is somehow a good representation of Islam's teachings on women!
Well they are the ones that catch the attention of Western editors.

And it gets worse - if you say anything that reflects positively on Islam in even the slightest way, they remove your edition and claim that it wasn't 'neutral'; I tried to fix up their articles a long time ago, but they didn't allow it. And so their articles on Islam will never improve because they are governed by bigots who have no education in Islamic teahcings, while those who do are silenced.
I am sorry you stopped trying. There is usually a process where articles get reverted - after all anyone can make a change - and then the process is argued about on the talk page. If no consensus is reached usually people appeal to the administrators. So articles do improve, even ones that are hotly contested, over time.

They give the most attention not to the central issues of Islam, but to whatever the latest anti-islamic allegations are in the west. So it is not so simple as just "go edit it" if there is a problem in the article - your edition must be approved by a hundred ignorant bigots in order to survive.
Well it is true that whatever is reflected in the Western press tends to catch the eye of Western editors. But the solution to that is more Muslims doing more editing. Your edit has to convince a few dozen people and you have to be able to defend your claims with sources. It is simply a struggle by the most bigoted although obviously a few of them end up that way if one side gives up or refuses to make a sensible case.
Reply

Hijrah
06-29-2006, 03:29 PM
I have a problem with all EXTREMIST muslims, by extremists I don't just man unnecessariy violent, I also don't like the modernists and apologists..we have to be dead honet on some things...For example, it is compulsory for women to expose no more than their face and hands. It is compulsory that a man does not shave the beard etc. etc. Some muslims are so pathetic to avoid the fact it is true and try to fit in with the kuffar..

As far as sites like these the bias is blatant but I wouldn't bother, when someone comes up to me and asks me, they usually understand. An example is the matter of apostasy. They quote the hadiths where it says to kill apostates, disregard 4:89-90 where it says to leave the peaceful apostate alone but when it comes to the matter of apostasy in Christianity they disregard that in the Bible it says to kill the apostate and the blasphemer..I really couldn't believe it when I read it but from there on I knew the bias was blatant...
Reply

Bittersteel
06-29-2006, 05:43 PM
fortunately wikipedia isn't used for info on Islam and its rejected by most people I know.everyone knows it can be edited.
Reply

HeiGou
06-29-2006, 06:49 PM
Originally Posted by Hijrah
I have a problem with all EXTREMIST muslims, by extremists I don't just man unnecessariy violent, I also don't like the modernists and apologists..we have to be dead honet on some things...For example, it is compulsory for women to expose no more than their face and hands. It is compulsory that a man does not shave the beard etc. etc. Some muslims are so pathetic to avoid the fact it is true and try to fit in with the kuffar..
I have a problem with Muslims who think it is worse for a woman to show a strand of hair than for a young man to blow up 52 people in London. If you all put one hundredth of the energy into doing something about terrorism that you do into hijab the world would be a lot safer.

As far as sites like these the bias is blatant but I wouldn't bother, when someone comes up to me and asks me, they usually understand. An example is the matter of apostasy. They quote the hadiths where it says to kill apostates, disregard 4:89-90 where it says to leave the peaceful apostate alone but when it comes to the matter of apostasy in Christianity they disregard that in the Bible it says to kill the apostate and the blasphemer..I really couldn't believe it when I read it but from there on I knew the bias was blatant...
I think Ansar al-Adl has provided some pretty good evidence that the apostate should be killed. I expect that there is a page on Christianity and apostacy. Have you looked? When was the last European killed for apostacy?
Reply

Hijrah
06-29-2006, 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by HeiGou
I have a problem with Muslims who think it is worse for a woman to show a strand of hair than for a young man to blow up 52 people in London. If you all put one hundredth of the energy into doing something about terrorism that you do into hijab the world would be a lot safer.



I think Ansar al-Adl has provided some pretty good evidence that the apostate should be killed. I expect that there is a page on Christianity and apostacy. Have you looked? When was the last European killed for apostacy?
I don't think you read my post clearly, sorry stupid answer, I never said I supported a suicide bomber killing innocent people, that's why I said NOT JUST UNNECESSARILY VIOLENT, I never said one was verse than the other, I'm all about modest Islam

i think I'll post a thread later about it, in Islam it's debatable some scholars disagree...but in christianity apostasy is def. punishable by death...Christians punished apostates as well before Church and State were separated...andI'm not even gonna bother responding to things u see on the news..i read Ansars posts clearly, he had a good explanation of how stupid it is for the West to interer with tha Afghan beig killed yet ignore other atrocities they are committing...
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-09-2012, 10:33 PM
  2. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-25-2010, 06:27 PM
  3. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 02-28-2008, 05:53 PM
  4. Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-21-2006, 04:42 PM
  5. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 06-26-2005, 01:43 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!