The Fight for Hebrew Wikipedia Puts the Wikimedia Foundation in a No-Win Situation

An existential crisis at the Hebrew Wikipedia mirrors Israel's deepening divides—and the world's. Now, the WMF must decide whether to step in.

For every political dispute shaping world events, one can be certain a parallel battle is raging somewhere on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia’s official list of contentious topics spans conflicts in Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and even U.S. politics, but none has been so fiercely contested as the Arab–Israeli conflict. Now, a new controversy in Israel is unfolding—not between Israel and its neighbors, but largely among Israelis themselves.

The battlefield is Wikipedia’s Hebrew-language edition (hewiki, as its editors call it), where the ongoing crisis echoes the deepening political fractures within Israel, and perhaps beyond. It is also shaping up to be one of the most destabilizing, project-threatening disputes The Wikipedian has encountered.

Consensus or Control?

In December, an 11,000-word Request for Comment (RfC) was posted on Meta-Wiki¹, alleging that a religious-nationalist faction had taken control of hewiki, rewriting the rules and banning dissenters to make sure the content of articles align with their political views. Much of this content centers on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, but its political implications extend beyond Israel, including LGBTQ+ issues.

The multi-part essay—a group effort by left-leaning hewiki contributors and posted by an editor named Itamar—describes a pattern of mass bans of progressive and secular editors in 2023, followed by elections in November 2024 that further entrenched the faction, as banned editors were unable to vote.

The timeline runs straight through one of the most consequential periods in modern Israeli history: the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on southern Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza. While that event reshaped Israeli politics, the hewiki controversy mirrors larger domestic political debates—particularly Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul, which Itamar and his allies see as a direct parallel. He even uses language associated with Israel’s ongoing hostage crisis:

“Editors are still being interrogated and threatened; only 3 of the 59 editors who were inexplicably blocked have been released.”

Itamar and his allies have called on the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to investigate the bans and remove the administrators responsible. So far, the WMF has yet to respond.

A Familiar Dynamic

The most detailed counterargument comes from a hewiki veteran named Yuri, who disputes nearly every claim in the RfC. He asserts that most of the banned editors were right-wing, not left-wing, and that Itamar’s faction engaged in its own off-wiki coordination through WhatsApp. In response, Itamar’s allies accuse Yuri of lying and misrepresenting data, while Yuri’s supporters argue that there is no real crisis and most hewiki editors agree with them and... that is about as far as The Wikipedian will go in trying to get to the bottom of it.

The Wikipedian knows only an Economist subscription’s worth about Israeli politics and much less about hewiki before this controversy, but he has read enough left-right disputes to recognize certain patterns.

In many political conflicts, there is a dynamic where the side seeking change must win the argument outright to shift the status quo, while the side in power only needs to muddy the waters enough to maintain it. When faced with strong evidence for reform, defenders of the system often present a weaker but emphatic counterargument—not to convince opponents, but to confuse the persuadable middle, making inaction the easiest choice.² While The Wikipedian cannot say with absolute certainty that is what’s happening here, considering the detailed arguments and receipts provided by Itamar compared with Yuri’s assertive but vague dismissal, it can reasonably be understood to follow that pattern.

Speaking of receipts, the clearest example of how hewiki content has moved in a religious-nationalist direction can be seen in its treatment of a topic which on the English Wikipedia is called Israeli occupation of the West Bank. It once carried the same name on hewiki, until a 2021 discussion resulted in its renaming to Israeli rule in Judea and Samaria.

The same Hebrew Wikipedia article, shown in 2021 vs. 2025. Screenshots have been slightly edited for clarity. CC BY-SA 4.0.

The word choices are inherently political—arguably in both directions. To North Americans, Judea and Samaria are historical and biblical terms, but it is also a political designation used by the State of Israel, and used specifically for those connotations. Even the current hewiki article acknowledges the differing usage:

“The region is referred to in Israel as ‘Judea and Samaria’ or ‘the Territories,’ and internationally as ‘West Bank.’”

But that’s not the whole story, either. In Israel, conservative parties prefer “Judea and Samaria”, while liberals use “West Bank”, and mainstream media sources will often use both, depending on the context. This resembles linguistic divides in other places, such as Republicans and Democrats in the Washington, DC area preferring to call their regional airport “Reagan” or “National”, respectively—or to opt out and just call it “DCA”.

A Matter of Precedent

At first glance, the struggles on Hebrew Wikipedia might seem to mirror those on English Wikipedia. In some ways, they do—but not precisely. On the English Wikipedia, criticism of Wikipedia’s content and governance mostly comes from the right³, while on hewiki the two sides have switched places. While English Wikipedia’s large and diverse editor base helps ensure stability and prevent any single faction from gaining too much control, hewiki’s smaller community makes it far more vulnerable to power consolidation and factional rule. And untangling that can be incredibly difficult—perhaps requiring external intervention.

The current controversy, and Itamar’s call for the WMF to weigh in, is not without precedent. In the early 2010s, a far-right faction of Croatian Wikipedia administrators gradually took control, and used their power to whitewash fascist war crimes and block dissenters. By 2013, Croatian Wikipedia had become widely recognized as a propaganda tool. Finally in 2021, the Wikimedia Foundation intervened, stripping administrative rights and leading a research effort providing support for the Wikimedia community to reset governance.⁴

Will the WMF do the same here? It’s a tricky decision. Given how polarized the factions are, it’s hard to imagine an internal resolution that would satisfy both sides. Left alone, the Hebrew Wikipedia could become even more insular and isolated. Then again, it’s also possible Yuri is right, and Itamar is wrong.

When the WMF intervened in Croatian Wikipedia, it drew little international attention—unlike the intense scrutiny that comes with anything involving Israel. Getting involved would send a clear message, but risks criticism. Yet while inaction seems like the easiest path, history suggests the problem will only fester.

A Crisis of Governance

The WMF’s decision will have ramifications far beyond Israel, feeding directly into rising political polarization, the breakdown of international consensus, and institutional paralysis that has repeatedly played out globally over the past decade.

In case you hadn’t noticed, the relative stability that defined much of the late 20th century has been giving way to something more fractured and volatile. In Orban’s Hungary, Modi’s India, Trump’s America, and yes, Netanyahu’s Israel, the “postwar consensus” is yielding to an era of multipolarity, power politics, and economic nationalism—first slowly, and now, increasingly it feels like, all at once.

At the same time, a frustrating passivity among ostensibly more responsible parties has allowed these trends to accelerate. In the U.S., Republican officials have repeatedly declined to challenge Trump’s lawlessness. In Europe, centrist parties have hesitated to take decisive action against the rise of the far right. In the headlines as of this writing, New York Governor Kathy Hochul seems unlikely to use her power to remove NYC Mayor Eric Adams, despite mounting scandals.

If the Wikimedia Foundation steps in to resolve the crisis on Hebrew Wikipedia, it would send a strong signal that it is doing something different. If it does not, it will be yet another case study in how liberal institutions are failing to act as the old consensus collapses.

1. A central hub for discussing Wikimedia Foundation projects.

2. The tactic has been especially associated with Russian propaganda.

3. Which The Wikipedian has recently covered.

4. This post originally overstated actions taken by WMF; community-elected stewards took direct action to remove problem administrators. The Wikipedian regrets the error.