Talk:Tech for Palestine

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

2025-08 Pirate Wires

[edit]

Pirate Wires is currently used as source, however the website endorse a Soros conspiracytheory in https://www.piratewires.com/p/george-soros-wikipedia and defend Tommy Robinson's ideas in https://www.piratewires.com/p/wikipedia-editors-war-uk-grooming-gangs-a-moral-panic thus is unreliable as far as I understand. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. They have the website design of a reliable source, but they have no editorial control and their journalists are hired by some investment techbro Mike Solano, I think.
See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#Pirate_Wires? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." The reporting by Pirate Wires on Tech for Palestine appears to be sound and subsequently confirmed. The material at your links did not appear especially concerning or germane to this article.Tioaeu8943 (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While they don't have to be "neutral, unbiased, or objective", they do have to better then some guy's blog of racist conspiracy theories. WP:BIASED: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering"
This is definitely a WP:QUESTIONABLE source that shouldn't be used outside of strictly attributed statements. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting on Soros at the link provided overhead is responsible. I was expecting the other one said to "defend Tommy Robinson's ideas" to mention Tommy Robinson. It does not, it too looks responsibly reported, and the characterization confuses me. The site is obviously not "some guy's blog of racist conspiracy theories." Since there are no objections to the coverage of T4P, we can safely regard Pirate Wires as WP:RS here. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "responsibly reported"?
Also, please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_465#Pirate_Wires? for previous discussions on its reliability. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that the claims are reasonable, credible, and moderate in tone. What do you mean by "racist conspiracy theories"? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
George Soros conspiracy theories - The entire article is making tenuis connections to insinuate George Soros is controlling Wikipedia. This is about as close to a cliched conspiracy theory as you can get. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of the community determines reliability. Some billionaire investment head of Founders Fund being the editor in chief suggests a profound lack of real editorial experience, and suggests that other sourcing would be preferrable to pirate wires. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What have you identified in the reporting of the cited source that is unconvincing or suspicious to you? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how we determine reliability. Per WP:RS, a source's reliability is determined by its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Pirate Wires lacks a strong reputation; its activities have been described as eg. resembling pump-and-dump cryptocurrency schemes - see here, one of the few pieces of coverage it has received. So it can't be used as a source. Anyone can create a website, and anyone with cash can create a website and call it a "media company"; but it only becomes a WP:RS when it builds a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy among other high-quality reliable sources, which Pirate Wires lacks. --Aquillion (talk) 22:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the answer to my question overhead is "Nothing." As far as this article is concerned, PW reported on malfeasance that the affected party - WP - investigated, confirmed, and acted on by punishing the offending accounts. This affirms the intentions of the editor stated in The Atlantic piece to which you link, that "he wants to do more original reporting" and “I want to be generating real news about the industry.” The same article, point in fact, does not support the claim that "its activities have been described as eg. resembling pump-and-dump cryptocurrency schemes." It says that in one instance the site may have been an unwitting party to a pump-and-dump scheme, which is a long way from characterizing its activities in general as dishonest.
The same paragraph you cite from WP:RS states, "Proper sourcing always depends on context," emphasis WP. Your ignoring the source as it is actually used in this article and refusing to evaluate it on its merits is a defiance of context and therefore WP:RS. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the article seems to at least attribute the report to Pirate Wires, which is the bare minimum. Regardless, if better sourcing exists, we should probably use that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have WP:DUE concerns; ignoring the low-quality sources covering this (Pirate Wires and Voz, both of which are very new outlets with no real reputations), coverage is minimal. And it can all reasonably be described as WP:BIASED in the same direction - while biased sources can be used, they are bad for establishing due weight; we cannot give undue weight to one perspective, which is what happens when we rely on a bunch of biased sources for something. Based on that I don't think it's due for the lead, and probably not for its own dedicated section. If people want that level of focus, they need higher-quality (and higher-profile) sources, eg. mainstream coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note WP:NOTRS: "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts." If PirateWires has "no real reputation," as you put it, then they don't have that reputation either.
    As I replied to this remark published, coincidentally I'm sure, two minutes before yours, no one seems to be questioning the actual reportage by Pirate Wires connected to this article. Without that context, discussions of WP:RS are not meaningful.
    Pace this edit, there is no "clear consensus on talk not to use Pirate Wires as source directly" and I plan to restore it unless one is established. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just doing a quick nose-count, either here or in the RSN discussion, shows a clear numerical majority against using Tech for Palestine as a source directly. Obviously that's just a quick nose-count, so if you disagree we can have a formal RFC and a proper closure, but I'm skeptical that it would give a different result. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you must well know, a "quick nose-count" is absolutely not how consensus works on Wikipedia. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre to see the entire section about T4P's Wikipedia editing campaign to be removed (though I agree it was a bit excessive and POINTY in its language). Regardless of whether Pirate Wires is a reliable source, the media outlets that reported Pirate Wire's story certainly are considered reliable. Sionk (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not against inclusion of PirateWires technically, if it’s due. Any analysis that is by PirateWires should be attributed to them and the previous version of the section did that.
We should also probably be more clear that the editting went against canvassing rules and was for pushing propalestine POV.
but understanding PirateWires, anything beyond that’s probs is undue Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored a bit in the body (I still feel it's undue for the lead) but described it as allegations per the Bloomberg source; JPost uses more strident language but is a WP:BIASED source that requires attribution (and ofc even if we did use Pirate Wires, it would likewise be a biased source that requires attribution.) We couldn't use them for unattributed statements in the article voice either way, certainly not when we have a secondary source describing it as just allegations. --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is almost entirely what T4P is known for - that doesn't seem to be the case? The rest of the article is much better-sourced. And there's at least some academic coverage, all of which seems unrelated to this. Just because it's the only reason you heard about them doesn't mean that it's actually the main thing they've been covered over; while we can use WP:BIASED sources, when pretty much every source you've presented except one is biased in the same direction, and that one mentions it in passing as an unproven allegation, it's reasonable to consider whether your view of its importance comes from relying too heavily on such sources - sources that are naturally only going to mention it in a negative context. And ofc when weighing due weight we have to consider and avoid that! --Aquillion (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNTH

[edit]

I intend to remove the paragraph...

"In January 2025, as a result of investigations into the canvassing and coordination activity, the Wikipedia arbitration committee took various measures including the banning of several accounts from editing on Israel and Palestine related subject matter, termed a "topic ban" as well as outright blocks wherein an editor is no longer able to make edits to any page. Eight pro-Palestine partisan accounts were topic banned, whereas two pro-Israel accounts were topic banned."

...which is sourced to a lengthy Jerusalem Post article.

The reports, of editors being blocked and topic banned on Wikipedia, is at the beginning of the JP article (which is generally about editing on Wikipedia). The JP article's paragraph which mentions Tech for Palestine is towards the end of the article, saying "Ashley Rindsberg from Pirate Wires... also exposed that following October 7th, a group named Tech for Palestine launched a campaign to coordinate the editing endeavors of 8,000 articles on Wikipedia, but when they were exposed – they proceeded to delete all of the pages and chats they were operating."

There is no reliable source currently provided which explicitly links the Wikipedia topic bans and blocks, or the "eight pro-Palestine partisan accounts", with TfP. Rather than synthesising unlinked facts to imply they are linked, we should be sticking to information about TfP here. Sionk (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digression, in terms of the actual ruling in WP:ARBPIA5, i don't think arbcom came to any conclusion that the 8 pro-pal accounts were part of TfP. I'm pretty sure many of them and their pro-Palestinian editting predate TfP. Ofc, we can't really use the ruling in an article, and need to use secondary sourcing for such a claim. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Sionk, explaining my edit as per your request.
I agree that the paragraph you removed had a problem with WP:SYNTH. It had some factual errors as well. It nevertheless had some pertinent and well-sourced information. The item should have been improved, not removed. My edit made clear that the bans and restrictions followed the reporting temporally and not causally, which you were right to object to, and I published it in the spirit of rescuing the WP:BABY from the bathwater.
The source is the same one that you recovered, and it supports the content of my edit. Would you consider restoring it? Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to the Talk page. But are you able to explain what purpose the paragraph serves, about the banning/restircting of the 5 Wikpedia editors? There's no evidence put forward in the JP article that they are members of Tech for Palestine.Sionk (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there's a weak syllogism in the implication that since T4P was caught engaging in particular acts of abuse, and the five accounts were were punished for the same abuse, therefore the accounts were affiliated with T4P. But blanking the item makes it look like ArbCom responded to the described controversy by doing nothing, which is misleading in a different way. I think my edit splits the difference between too much inference and not enough. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's WP:SYNTH. If we don't have any sources connecting Tech for Palestine to the ArbCom case, the answer is to say as little as possible; truthfully, given the minimal coverage this received and the lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage on Tech for Palestine in relation to it, the amount we have is already undue. And in fact your rationale implies synthesis - you are alleging that the ArbCom case is somehow connected to described controversy, which nothing in the sources supports. --Aquillion (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We know that they're connected - accounts were punished for engaging in the behavior discovered to be perpetrated by T4P. What we don't know is whether that was causal or coincidental. My edit didn't make a claim about that one way or the other, and it recovered pertinent information that WP took action against accounts engaged in the abuse that T4P was encouraging, thus reinforcing the fact that canvassing is against guidelines. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we think we know, or whatever our suppositions are, if they're not reported in reliable sources they're not appropriate for Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, which is why when a WP:RSPS like The Jerusalem Post reports that accounts were punished for the abuse that T4P was discovered perpetrating, that material should be included. WP:SYNTH is directed at Wikipedia editors. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general The Jerusalem Post «should be used as a source for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict only to cite basic facts or if its reporting is validated by additional reporting from another source not similarly limited» WP:JERUSALEMPOST. In particular the part of the linked article oncerning T4P is only relaying The Pirate Wires (see above section). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:13, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That the aforementioned accounts were punished, and that Pirate Wires uncovered wrongdoing, are basic facts. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn’t do facts, it does verifiable. If an investment firm’s blog cosplaying as a news journal is the only source we got, there is a question of if this is appropriately WP:DUE for inclusion on this article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appeared as if multiple sources confirmed this, but even then, the source you are disparaging also could likely use new discussion because it is not on the WP:RSP as "Generally Unreliable" and from what I have seen it should be perfectly acceptable for use. No clear or persistent consensus has been established that it cannot be used and any removal on that basis is not justified. Iljhgtn (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"An investment firm’s blog cosplaying as a news journal" is not a very generous way of describing WP:BLOOMBERG.
In all seriousness, it's wild to see reporting that no one is disputing and has been cited by green WP:RSPS sources get blanked because editors have deemed Pirate Wires' founder, based on nothing, incapable of fostering the kind of journalism that his reporter produced in the article under discussion. This looks like a whole lot of barely concealed WP:JUST and I am about to fix it. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
nonsequitor, i was responding to the pirate wires article, which is a personal project of mike solana, who has taken the role of editor in chief, despite having no journalistic training, and calling into question if this is anything more than an WP:BLOG. See also WP:USESPS
the bloomberg article mentions tech for palestine once, saying they coordinated to push pro-palestinian POV. it says nothing about banned accounts.
and that Pirate Wires lacks the traditional editorial controls other reliable sourcing has, and has been caught pushing a soros conspiracy theory, are major red flags for its usage. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it was an ironic comment that your dismissal of Pirate Wires as an investment firm publishing a news blog could just as well apply to Bloomberg. It matters not at all whether PW has "traditional editorial controls" (what does this mean, and how do you know they're not extant?) or whether Solana had "journalistic training" (neither did Michael Bloomberg). It matters whether they're producing credible and reliable journalism, and they self-evidently are.
WP:USESPS: "Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same." The author of the PW expose is Ashley Rindsberg.
The accusation of the site trafficking in Soros conspiracy theories is spurious. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomberg source which was recently added further supports in RS the clear efforts by T4P to mass canvass and rework much of the entire WP:PIA area. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Bloomberg source also say that «in October [2024?], a person [...] said those efforts had “zero effect.”». Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2025 (UTC)´[reply]
  • The Bloomberg source only mentions them once, in passing, and says only that Conversely, an initiative named Tech for Palestine allegedly began in the spring of 2024 coordinating editing of Wikipedia pages on its Discord server. The allegations were first reported by the Jewish Insider (emphasis mine) - it presents it as an unproven allegation of little significance. You misused them as a source by using that to cite a sentence describing those allegations as talk, but either way it is clearly undue for the lead. --Aquillion (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "In passing" means not just "not a lot of text used", but more that it is only a brief mention and not the major part of the story. This is one of the most major parts of the story. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, it is exceptionally appropriate for the lead, and entirely WP:DUE. Iljhgtn (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not in passing? This is literally the only thing it says about Tech for Palestine: Conversely, an initiative named Tech for Palestine allegedly began in the spring of 2024 coordinating editing of Wikipedia pages on its Discord server. The allegations were first reported by the Jewish Insider. That's it. That's the only part of that article that talks about Tech for Palestine in any way. That's not leadworthy, and certainly not treated as a major or even significant part of the story; that's a brief, minor aside in a list of back-and-forth accusations (note the "conversely"; it contrasts it with the bit above.) And note, again, that it describes it as allegations (and the other sources are all WP:BIASED, requiring attribution, certainly now that we have a more neutral source describing them as unproven allegations) yet you've re-added it as if the sources describe it as proven fact. In fact, here's a more full quote of the relevant part of the Bloomberg piece for context:
Allegations of coordinated editing have been lodged against all sides in the Middle East disputes. In early 2024, three different editors involved in a previously unreported pro-Israel campaign were banned from Wikipedia following an investigation by ArbCom. Their coordination began shortly after Oct. 7, the investigation found, when an editor who had been kicked off the website began emailing others and directing them to amend pages related to war in Gaza, including articles pertaining crimes against Israel, the use of human shields and the 2001 Beit Rima raid in the West Bank.
On Oct. 16, one of the three editors sent an email — reviewed by Bloomberg News — urging colleagues who work on PIA pages to vote against an article that referred to the war in the Gaza Strip as a “genocide” started by Israel.
“Please vote for the article to be deleted or merged,” the author wrote, calling the page’s editors “propagandists” and referring to the article as “ridiculous.”
Conversely, an initiative named Tech for Palestine allegedly began in the spring of 2024 coordinating editing of Wikipedia pages on its Discord server. The allegations were first reported by the Jewish Insider.
If we're going to use Bloomberg as a source, we need to reflect that context, and make it clear that this accusation was part of a larger context where Allegations of coordinated editing have been lodged against all sides in the Middle East disputes, since it's clearly placed in that context in the source. --Aquillion (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The disputed text has been edit-warred back into the lead; as I said, I'm not seeing a consensus for inclusion here, but if we are going to use Bloomberg as a source we must be extremely careful to reflect the full context of what it says. It specifically uses the term allegations and mentions it only in the context of Allegations of coordinated editing have been lodged against all sides in the Middle East disputes; removing those two aspects strips it of vital context. (I think that including it makes it clear that this is undue, since it's a passing mention of one exchange in something that Bloomberg covers as a larger back-and-forth series of allegations between two sides, but if we are going to include it then we have to reflect that.) --Aquillion (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to take a stab at rewording with those provisions? I'd support these changes. Iljhgtn (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Bluethricecreamman started a noticeboard discussion about the reliability of Pirate Wires with respect to this article five days ago. Tioaeu8943 (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking to this! Would have been nice, if that had been done earlier by the OP! Iljhgtn (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Notification

[edit]

apologies, I forgot. As discussion isn't really dying down, I also made an RFC just now on that discussion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]