A whistleblower claims the Saudi government hacked into Wikipedia’s highest rank to control information about the country, activists reported yesterday. Wikipedia administrators have been arrested. Ziyad Al Sophiani (up to 8 years in prison) and Osama Khalid (up to 32 years in prison). By posting content “deemed critical of the persecution of domestic political activists”, the Wikimedia Foundation today issued a statement to Ars, disputing the report, saying there was no “invasion” and that Wikipedia’s He argued that administrators “do not have ranks.”
These conflicting statements follow an investigation that the Wikimedia Foundation concluded last month, which resulted in the banning of 16 users in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region for “conflict-of-interest editing of Wikipedia projects.” it was done. At the time, Wikimedia said, “We were able to see that many users with close ties to external bodies were editing the platform in a coordinated manner to further those bodies’ aims. ”
According to a joint statement by US-based rights group Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) and Beirut-based SMEX, sources close to Wikipedia and interviews with incarcerated administrators found these “external groups ‘ was identified as a ‘government agency acting as an independent government agency’. Editor. The agencies acted as spies for Saudi authorities and identified non-compliant administrators, such as those imprisoned for editing Wikipedia entries to include information not approved by Saudi authorities, activists claim. .
“It is highly irresponsible for international organizations and companies to think that they can operate independently or safely from the control of the Saudi government,” DAWN Executive Director Sarah Lee Whitson said in a statement. rice field.
DAWN and SMEX did not immediately respond to Ars’ request for comment. (update: Wikimedia has released an updated statement about “inaccuracy” here. Whitson told his Ars that Wikimedia is “playing with technical words” and that “it is very important to be transparent about what Wikimedia describes as a conflict of interest between editors.” is important to the She said that Wikimedia should “provide more transparency about the 16 users they have banned” and that “the security measures taken to avoid further endangering Wikipedia’s editors in a totalitarian state.” precautions must be taken because there is no denying that two of them are currently suffering.” Saudi Arabia’s prisons” and the problem goes “far beyond Saudi Arabia”. Whitson told Wikimedia not only because it could endanger editors, but because Wikipedia “loses credibility” if information compiled in a totalitarian state is unreliable. It urges us to rethink our global model of relying on local Wikipedia editors. )
A Wikimedia spokesperson told Ars that there were “significant inaccuracies in the statements issued by SMEX/DAWN” and that the Guardian’s report did.
“Our investigation did not find that the Saudi government has ‘infiltrated’ or infiltrated the highest ranks of Wikipedia,” a Wikimedia spokesperson told Ars. “In fact, Wikipedia administrators do not have a ‘rank’. Our investigation also did not mention any Saudi nationals acting under the influence of the Saudi government. We don’t know where these volunteers actually live, but the ban on volunteers who may be Saudi is part of a broader action to globally ban 16 editors across the MENA region. It was the department. “
Activists claim that Wikimedia had “secretly” excluded details of the statement, with the source saying that “the ban was banned in the region after it was discovered that it was working as an agent for the Saudi government.” It was to 16 Saudi users, the media’s highest-ranking editorial team,” it said. Promoting positive content about the government and removing content critical of the government, including information about domestic political prisoners. (All banned users are listed on this Wikimedia page as banned on December 6, 2022.)
In a statement, DAWN and SMEX also clarified that the level of user access to Wikipedia is indicated by “higher” administrators. This, Wikipedia says, “affects your ability to perform certain actions on Wikipedia.” These users are not employees of Wikipedia, but rather volunteers who have been granted access to various tools. According to Wikipedia, only administrators “have exclusive access to a number of tools that allow them to perform certain functions on the wiki. These tools can be used to delete pages, protect pages, block and block users It covers processes such as unlocking, and the ability to edit fully protected pages.”
The Wikimedia Foundation did not comment on the Wikipedia administrator’s arrest, but said in a statement in December that legal restrictions may have prevented further comment.
Activists say Wikimedia’s response has been inadequate, with the findings of a study that disclosed “all pages edited by a team based in Saudi Arabia” and “subjected them to independent review and analysis.” We are asking the Foundation to publish the They also said that Wikimedia should put warning labels on pages whose administrators could be at risk of prosecution by the dictatorship, stating that “freedom of speech is restricted and independent writing is severely restricted.” States should reconsider their dependence on administrators.
The group also asked Saudi officials to “influence and control content on Wikipedia,” including “the extent to which they pressured or rewarded Saudi Arabia-based administrators to produce content.” We have asked them to disclose their efforts to They called on Saudi authorities to release “those who have been charged or convicted of posting content on Wikipedia.”
Wikimedia said in December that it would explore “various ways to keep everyone safe and free to contribute to the project.” “Finding a global process for navigating safety challenges that allows us to deal with such situations as transparently as possible, while prioritizing the avoidance of risks to the safety of our customers.”
We will update this post when we have updates regarding new steps the Foundation plans to take in 2023 to protect administrators from authoritarian attempts to control Wikipedia’s content.
