FIRST ON FOX: Wikipedia’s editorial safeguards failed to correct antisemitic content, ADL says

FIRST ON FOX: More than a year after the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) uncovered a group of at least 30 Wikipedia editors seemingly coordinating to add anti-Israel bias, misleading information and antisemitic narratives , the group says the online encyclopedia has yet to edit or remove much of the concerning content.

"We had expected that these editors would be removed.

We had expected that their edits would have been reversed.

We expected that new policies would have implemented.

Almost nothing has changed," ADL CEO and National Director Jonathan Greenblatt told Fox News Digital.

In the 2025 report, " Editing for Hate ," the ADL raised several issues, including a "coordinated campaign" of manipulation of Wikipedia content related to Israel, Palestine and similar topics.

Additionally, the organization said it found pro-Hamas perspectives informing Arabic-language content on those same topics.

The group of 30 editors, according to the ADL, were more active than comparable groups "by a factor of at least two." WIKIPEDIA CO-FOUNDER SAYS LEFT'S 'RELENTLESS' TAKEOVER OF MASS MEDIA RUINED THE WEBSITE HE HELPED BUILD Wikipedia's community banned some of the editors from the topic area or from the site entirely following the 2025 report.

However, the ADL claims the issues that it flagged were not resolved with the restrictions on those named in its previous report.

In its 2026 report, " Damage Done: Wikipedia Leaves Biased Edits Unchecked Despite Editor Bans ," the ADL stated that "no banned editor's body of work has been systemically reviewed to determine which edits should be corrected." The organization found that across seven articles reviewed for its 2026 report, six of which are "flagship pages," 91% of a banned editor's edits were still live.

"A topic ban is great in theory, but in practice, if you're not doing it, if you aren't really taking action, there's really no ban at all," Greenblatt told Fox News Digital.

"It's as if you had an individual who was spraying graffiti on the walls of public buildings.

You might arrest that individual, but you don't erase or clean up the graffiti.

You still leave it on the public institutions.