Saudi Arabia jails two Wikipedia administrators for four decades in "bid to control website's...

midian182

Posts: 9,745   +121
Staff member

Update: The Wikimedia Foundation has disputed claims by SMEX/DAWN that it found evidence the Saudi Arabian government "infiltrated" its team in the region and influenced users. A Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson said the activists' statement contains material inaccuracies, and the organization was not provided with a copy before release.

"There are in fact no 'ranks' amongst Wikipedia admins. There was also no reference to Saudis acting under the influence of the Saudi government in our investigation. We do not know where these volunteers actually reside."

The foundation's statement did not make any reference to the jail terms reported by DAWN and SMEX.

Saudi Arabia has reportedly jailed two senior Wikipedia administrators for a total of four decades after infiltrating the website's senior ranks in the region in an attempt to gain control of the online encyclopedia's content.

According to the two rights groups, an investigation by parent body Wikimedia discovered that the Saudi government deployed a number of its citizens, some of them by force, to act as agents in the infiltration of Wikipedia (Update: Wikimedia disputes this claim). "Wikimedia's investigation revealed that the Saudi government had infiltrated the highest ranks in Wikipedia's team in the region," Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn) and Beirut-based Smex said in a joint statement.

Washington-based Dawn was founded by Jamal Khashoggi, the Saudi journalist who publicly criticized Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman and his policies. He was murdered by a team of Saudi agents in Saudi Arabia's consulate in Istanbul in October 2018, an assassination believed to have been ordered by the prince.

Wikimedia, which started the investigation last January, said it "was able to confirm that several users with close connections with external parties were editing the platform in a coordinated fashion to advance the aim of those parties," a reference to the Saudi citizens acting at the behest of the kingdom's government.

The two high-ranking volunteer administrators—Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani—who could edit fully protected Wikipedia pages were arrested on the same day in September 2020. Khalid was jailed for 32 years, while Sofiani was sentenced to eight years.

"The arrests of Osama Khalid and Ziyad al-Sofiani on one hand, and the infiltration of Wikipedia on the other hand, show a horrifying aspect of how the Saudi government wants to control the narrative and Wikipedia," Abdullah Alaoudh, Dawn's director of research for the Gulf, told AFP.

The news comes just a month after Wikimedia announced global bans for 16 users "who were engaging in conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia projects in the Mena [Middle East and North Africa] region."

In mid-December, former Twitter manager Ahmad Abouammo, a dual US-Lebanese citizen, was convicted of acting as an agent for Saudi Arabia. He was sentenced to 42 months in federal prison and ordered to pay $242,000 to cover the cost of bribes he received for his actions. Abouammo and fellow Twitter employee Ali Alzabarah, who is wanted by the FBI, were accused of being enlisted by Saudi officials between late 2014 and early 2015 to attain private information on accounts critical of the Saudi regime.

Saudi Arabia changed its counterterrorism laws in 2017 to add dissent as a crime. Insulting the king and the crown prince can result in a ten-year prison sentence, while those engaged in "other acts of terrorism" can receive the death penalty.

Via The Guardian

Permalink to story.

 
People actually use wikipedia? I must be missing something here.....what don't I get about wikipedia that makes it this important?
 
People actually use wikipedia? I must be missing something here.....what don't I get about wikipedia that makes it this important?
I honestly use it for a ton of things. The number of articles with conflicts of interests are small, so in those cases I'll do more research after. I tend to use it for things such as looking up an actor's movies/tv shows they were in, the history of something, how a process works, and sometimes will jump from one topic to a related one (they have a good balance between being digestible and complete compared to IMDB and search engines). On my PC, my most recent visits were for one half, Pythagorean theorem, Lynx (Web Browser), Spain, and email address. On my phone, my most recent visits were for Atkins diet, White Collar, To Your Eternity, Amy Adams, and Fermintation in winemaking. With most of these I was looking for specific information that I knew I'd be able to find on Wikipedia but wouldn't want to bother checking each search result to find it.
 
A college student (to prove a point) went to wikipedia, and changed the definition of Love to "a flatulence derived from the pain of spending money on another human being"......it stayed that way for a month before being changed by someone else.
 
A college student (to prove a point) went to wikipedia, and changed the definition of Love to "a flatulence derived from the pain of spending money on another human being"......it stayed that way for a month before being changed by someone else.
maybe because it's a valid explanation ? hahaha
 
32 years in prison? Maaan, that's harsh.

Do they still get access to Wikipedia?
 
I'm sorry, but Wikipedia has eliminated itself many years ago. Outside of science and technology articles and some cultural ones, the rest is mostly crap...
Powerful editors are cuasi-fascists, autocrats and authoritarians, many with obvious agendas (of their own or at the behest of others) and sometimes apply their biases to the extreme.
The so-called "reputable sources" are just that, "re-putas". the "selectivity" of these RS shows what Wikipedia has become, turned in part into another weapon of communication warfare. In fact, there are studies and research about it. And last year... last year was extreme (and keep going).
A shame for a project of this kind and magnitude.
 
Last edited:
People actually use wikipedia?
They use it because it's free, it's up to date and the information is continually edited and reviewed. What are your other options? Buying a decent set of encyclopaedias is expensive and they're out of date the moment they're printed. Or search for articles on the web that only reinforce what you already believe - that's assuming you want to accept all the cookies and advertising that are thrown at you. Or listen to clueless influencers who's only motivation is to sell something. Or perhaps it's just to sit there and learn nothing new.

Personally I'm quite happy with Wikipedia.
 
They use it because it's free, it's up to date and the information is continually edited and reviewed. What are your other options? Buying a decent set of encyclopaedias is expensive and they're out of date the moment they're printed. Or search for articles on the web that only reinforce what you already believe - that's assuming you want to accept all the cookies and advertising that are thrown at you. Or listen to clueless influencers who's only motivation is to sell something. Or perhaps it's just to sit there and learn nothing new.

Personally I'm quite happy with Wikipedia.

Many sources on the internet are free or even if there is a paywall, there are ways around it.

My understanding is that wikipedia is there for anyone to add, change, alter, adjust, makeup and so on any info they want.

I guess that's why I'm curious why it's a go to place for people. I'm sure it has some uses, but personally I don't think I'd trust much on it.
 
When he's not chopping journalist up into pieces in foreign embassies and taking them home in bin bags Salman likes nothing better than locking them up up for life.
 
I guess that's why I'm curious why it's a go to place for people. I'm sure it has some uses, but personally I don't think I'd trust much on it.
For physical sciences, it's a veritable treasure trove. They have the low down on everything from cats to cobras, to the theory of relativity.

In a somewhat related topic, Qutar is now advertising tourism on OTA TV.

I guess they have something in common with Capt. Ahab, in that they're in search of the "straight white whale". Sorry, that slipped. I meant the "great white whale". :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
When he's not chopping journalist up into pieces in foreign embassies and taking them home in bin bags Salman likes nothing better than locking them up up for life.
So basically what you're "alleging", is that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia isn't a "ceremonial monarchy"?
 
Many sources on the internet are free or even if there is a paywall, there are ways around it.

My understanding is that wikipedia is there for anyone to add, change, alter, adjust, makeup and so on any info they want.

I guess that's why I'm curious why it's a go to place for people. I'm sure it has some uses, but personally I don't think I'd trust much on it.
Most sources are free but very few sources on the internet aim to be unbiased. Being human we like to go to sources that reinforce our beliefs. Right wing Americans might watch Fox News while UK citizens on the left might read The Guardian. I suspect that's why people always seem so polarised these days.

Anyone can spend time to add information into wikipedia. Some people will add bad information - that's just the nature of people. If an editor looks at your change and finds it wrong or wildly biased then it only takes a moment for them to revert your changes. I suspect those that dislike Wikipedia are those that have had their edits removed by editors.
 
Most sources are free but very few sources on the internet aim to be unbiased. Being human we like to go to sources that reinforce our beliefs. Right wing Americans might watch Fox News while UK citizens on the left might read The Guardian. I suspect that's why people always seem so polarised these days.

Anyone can spend time to add information into wikipedia. Some people will add bad information - that's just the nature of people. If an editor looks at your change and finds it wrong or wildly biased then it only takes a moment for them to revert your changes. I suspect those that dislike Wikipedia are those that have had their edits removed by editors.
It's the editors that are commies ... even the founder of Wiki said it's been turned into trash.
 
Back