Logan Naidu

Compare these two @Wikipedia entries—"Tommy Robinson" and "Alaa Abd El-Fattah." It's a masterclass in information manipulation. Two entries. Two British men (in El-Fattah's case, at least nominally). Both subject of UK government action. Yet the entries could not be more different. The first sentence of the Wikipedia article on Alaa Abd El-Fattah describes him as "an Egyptian-British software developer, blogger, political activist and former political prisoner." Sounds lovely! The lead goes on to tell a heart-rending story about the persecution of a valiant freedom fighter. According to Wikipedia, El-Fattah was imprisoned for staging political protests. He protected women at a rally from police violence. He's a blogger, a software developer, an inspired political polemicist. A wonderful son. A father who missed his child. He even won prestigious awards! The lead makes no mention of the fact that El-Fattah, has incited the murder of Jews, whites, British police officers, and children—including the torture of their mothers. It doesn't mention his Holocaust denial or his homophobia. Here's just a sample of what El-Fattah has written over the years: + “If we can’t kill the police officers, let us find a terrorist cell to kill their children and torture their mothers” + "The Islamic Group was right. We must kill all police." + "No medicine can reverse God's will. He should subject his anger at [God] for creating those dirty homosexual[s']." Despite this, the Wikipedia article's all-important lead section makes no mention of El-Fattah's vile hatred of gays or his open support for ISIS. Instead, you get a tiny little sentence at the very bottom of the lead about "controversial" social media posts. This is what AIs train on and what @Google feeds to the public. Indeed, Google actually quotes the first sentence of the Wikipedia article directly in its "Knowledge Panel" about El-Fattah. Ask Google "Who is Alaa Abd El-Fattah?" and the response is word-for-word pulled from Wikipedia: "Egyptian-British software developer, blogger, political activist and former political prisoner." Now look at the entry on Tommy Robinson. The very first, defining sentence calls Robinson "a British far-right activist and one of the UK's most prominent anti-Islam campaigners. Robinson has a history of criminal convictions." Wow—what a difference a political (or religious?) affiliation makes! But don't stop there. The next paragraph calls Robinson a "fascist," using Wikivoice to assert this as fact, not perspective or opinion. The rest of the lead is basically a rap sheet beaten into encyclopedia form. It includes not just a litany of convictions but also cites open, ongoing investigations. (So much for Wikipedia's beloved presumption of innocence.) Robinson's entry has unsubstantiated allegations that he is a Kremlin agent, that he spread Russian disinformation, and that he promulgates COVID conspiracy theories. The Wikipedia entry is a dossier and hit piece all wrapped up into one neat little informational package. The framing is alarming, the sentiment is overwhelmingly negative. But for the jihadist who wants people like me (and, probably, you) murdered? It's a lovefest. This isn't just about Wikipedia. It's how the information ecosystem works—how a politically motivated view of "truth" gets concretized into plain "fact." This is just one example, but there are thousands more like it. For more Wikipedia investigation, follow @npovmedia.