Persian Wikipedia

[Mancunium]

Press TV is the English-language news division of Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), headquartered in Tehran. Today it presented the following report: link

Wikipedia claims al-Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden while in Peshawar, Pakistan during the late 1980s. This is an outrageous fiction.

Al-Qaeda was established under the authority of President Reagan on March 27, 1985, with National Security Directive 166. This established a broad cover organization that could engage in arms and financial transactions otherwise prohibited by US law.

It was never intended as a vehicle for false-flag terrorism. That would come later. It was a cover operation meant to allow clandestine operations that required a high degree of deniability.

Al-Qaeda is an organization totally under the control of the intelligence agencies of the US, Israel, Britain and France. The real foundation of al-Qaeda and its oversight, its very real hierarchy, is outlined below.

A similar organization had been formed to deal with the danger of Soviet expansionism in Europe. It was called “Gladio.” Eventually, Gladio became a very real terror organization, operating in Europe for over a decade.

Chosen to head that organization was Osama bin Laden or “Colonel Tim Osman,” as he was known.

Bin Laden worked directly with White House national security advisors and the Central Intelligence Agency. From his headquarters in Islamabad and Peshawar, bin Laden coordinated American activities in Afghanistan and across the Islamic world.

In August 1989, bin Laden met with White House intelligence advisor Lee Wanta and CIA station Chief Jimmie Chee to arrange the repatriation of the last 116 Stinger missiles in inventory in Pakistan.

Details and transcripts of that meeting are available, a meeting held in English.

In early 1990, bin Laden, suffering from advanced kidney disease, was flown to an American facility in the Persian Gulf.

From there, bin Laden flew to Los Angeles, landing in the Ontario airport, met by Albert Hakim, representing President Bush (41), Ollie North (free on appeal bond), Admiral William Dickie, attorney Glenn Peglau and General Jack Singlaub, one of the founders of the CIA.

Hakim was the personal representative of President Bush and in overall charge of the project. “Bud” McFarlane, an Iran-Contra figure pardoned by President Bush in 1992, was also a part of the group.

Bin Laden then left Los Angeles for Washington DC. There he stayed in the Mayflower Hotel. Meetings were held at the Metropolitan Club in Washington. Attorney Glenn Peglau stayed at the Metropolitan.

And it goes on in some detail. Now that an authoritative source has supplied this new information, I expect that WP's Al-Qaeda (T-H-L) article will have to be rewritten.

[Poetlister]

As this is obviously a reliable source, its views should be given due weight on Wikipedia in accordance with WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV.

[Tarc]

Lolwut? The mouthpiece media outlet of a state sponsor of terrorism isn't be a reliable source for a weather broadcast, much less for something of this nature. Funds released by the Reagan administration were used as seed money for various extremist Islamic groups, sure. But to say "Al-Qaeda was established under Reagan's authority..." is bogus.

[Midsize Jake]

Funds released by the Reagan administration were used as seed money for various extremist Islamic groups, sure. But to say "Al-Qaeda was established under Reagan's authority..." is bogus.

The exact wording is deliberately unclear, to take advantage of the fact that NSDD 166 is still classified, making the statement harder to refute by US sources. The Iranians are playing a propaganda game here, and what they're calling a "broad cover organization" probably refers to groups of mujaheddin fighters who later formed the core of al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban. True, it's bogus to say that Reagan deliberately and knowingly created an anti-American terrorist organization as such (and why would he, since he already had the Republican Party), but there was a lot more involved than just "seed money" - there were training camps, Stinger missiles, guns, intelligence cooperation, and formal receptions in the West Wing.



Osama bin Laden is probably the one to Reagan's immediate right, between Reagan and actor Ian McShane (T-H-L).

[Hersch]

Lolwut? The mouthpiece media outlet of a state sponsor of terrorism isn't be a reliable source for a weather broadcast, much less for something of this nature.

Agreed, but there is no reason to believe that Wikipedia will not simply continue to use the Washington Post and other publications of its ilk as sources.

[Hersch]

The Iranians are playing a propaganda game here, and what they're calling a "broad cover organization" probably refers to groups of mujaheddin fighters who later formed the core of al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban. True, it's bogus to say that Reagan deliberately and knowingly created an anti-American terrorist organization as such (and why would he, since he already had the Republican Party), but there was a lot more involved than just "seed money" - there were training camps, Stinger missiles, guns, intelligence cooperation, and formal receptions in the West Wing.

The main bone I would pick with the Iranian account is that this sort of activity began well before the Reagan administration, although perhaps what is now called "Al-Qaeda" was formally founded on his watch. The template for all this was the British orchestration of the Muslim Brotherhood back in the 1920s. The fact that the brotherhood was nominally anti-British is irrelevant; they followed the desired program anyway. There was similar activity under the Brzezinski, excuse me, Carter administration, but it did pick up a lot of steam with the founding of the Special Situations Group under George HW Bush during the Reagan Adminstration in 1981.

[Poetlister]

I assume that Midsize Jake is being ironic, but Hersch is actually being serious.

[DanMurphy]

Lolwut? The mouthpiece media outlet of a state sponsor of terrorism isn't be a reliable source for a weather broadcast, much less for something of this nature.

Agreed, but there is no reason to believe that Wikipedia will not simply continue to use the Washington Post and other publications of its ilk as sources.

A search shows at least 1,065 Wikipedia articles with "presstv.ir" in them.

Not bad. But they have some work to do. The Kremlin's propaganda channel "RT" has its stamp on over 12,200 Wikipedia articles.

[Midsize Jake]

I assume that Midsize Jake is being ironic, but Hersch is actually being serious.

Well, whether or not you believe that the British were responsible for the "orchestration of the Muslim Brotherhood," or that the US and other Western governments were involved in the initial formation of other Islamist organizations that either started out radical or later became that way, the fact remains that the Iranians have no incentive to point any of that out - true or otherwise.

Despite their recent setback in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is still fairly popular in many areas of the Middle East. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda is shrinking, in part due to the fact that so many of them are getting killed by drone strikes and what-not. The Iranians are always trying to portray themselves as leaders of the worldwide Islamist movement, but they don't want to give the USA any credit for al-Qaeda's gradual weakening - they'd much rather attribute that to the notion that al-Qaeda was some sort of US-backed operation to begin with.

What's interesting in our context is that they start this "report" by saying that the Wikipedia article in question is an "outrageous fiction." They're using Wikipedia as a means to gin-up a controversy over something that would otherwise just be a simple ongoing counter-claim. Wikipedia's inherent lack of "reliability" (as always, a red herring in itself) is simply a vehicle for pointing out something that serves their political purposes at this particular moment.

Wikipedians, if they even cared, would probably claim that if Wikipedia didn't exist - or wasn't the way it is - the Iranians would simply find some other vehicle. But would they, really? Personally, I'm not so sure.

[Hersch]

Well, whether or not you believe that the British were responsible for the "orchestration of the Muslim Brotherhood," or that the US and other Western governments were involved in the initial formation of other Islamist organizations that either started out radical or later became that way, the fact remains that the Iranians have no incentive to point any of that out - true or otherwise.

Their own "Islamic Revolution" back in 1979 was largely foreign-inspired. The Iranians have been a punching bag for the "west" for many decades, with a revolving door of governments being imposed and then overthrown from the outside. Right now, they seem to be regaining a modest amount of sovereignty. I'm surprised that anyone should be skeptical of the idea that foreign agencies guide much of what transpires in the Mideast -- there is such a long history of it. T.E. Lawrence became a celebrity. During our own lifetimes we've seen 20 years of "regime change" invasions and foreign-funded putsches. There was an interesting fictional account in the movie "Syriana."

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda is shrinking, in part due to the fact that so many of them are getting killed by drone strikes and what-not.

Possibly. But some make the argument that by killing so many civilians and kids as collateral damage, the drone strikes actually help recruit to al-Qaeda.

[The Adversary]

Lolwut? The mouthpiece media outlet of a state sponsor of terrorism isn't be a reliable source for a weather broadcast, much less for something of this nature.

Agreed, but there is no reason to believe that Wikipedia will not simply continue to use the Washington Post and other publications of its ilk as sources.

A search shows at least 1,065 Wikipedia articles with "presstv.ir" in them.

Not bad. But they have some work to do. The Kremlin's propaganda channel "RT" has its stamp on over 12,200 Wikipedia articles.

And the website of Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Israel) is in 1,358 articles.

Alas, that website is blocked in many countries, (including Egypt).

[Poetlister]

And the CIA Factbook is in 7,954 articles. Can anyone beat that?

[EricBarbour]

And the CIA Factbook is in 7,954 articles. Can anyone beat that?

Easily: Links from Wikipedia to Wikia, still around 29,000.

[Zoloft]

And the CIA Factbook is in 7,954 articles. Can anyone beat that?

Easily: Links from Wikipedia to Wikia, still around 29,000.

I do believe the game was name more state-funded information site links, not cruft sites.

[Hersch]

The number of links to the Washington Post are astronomical. Of course, the Post is not formally owned by the government. It is owned by the private oligarchy which directs the government under our corporativist system.

[DanMurphy]

And the CIA Factbook is in 7,954 articles. Can anyone beat that?

Easily: Links from Wikipedia to Wikia, still around 29,000.

I do believe the game was name more state-funded information site links, not cruft sites.

The CIA factbook is generally among the best online sources (for whatever that's worth) for the kind of stuff it's used to support in Wikipedia - basically demographic and economic info.

[Poetlister]

The CIA factbook is generally among the best online sources (for whatever that's worth) for the kind of stuff it's used to support in Wikipedia - basically demographic and economic info.

I agree. I was making the point that just because something is a Government source doesn't automatically make it unreliable.

[DanMurphy]

The CIA factbook is generally among the best online sources (for whatever that's worth) for the kind of stuff it's used to support in Wikipedia - basically demographic and economic info.

I agree. I was making the point that just because something is a Government source doesn't automatically make it unreliable.

Yes. RT and PressTV are government propaganda outlets hence the problem.

[Hersch]

The CIA factbook is generally among the best online sources (for whatever that's worth) for the kind of stuff it's used to support in Wikipedia - basically demographic and economic info.

I agree. I was making the point that just because something is a Government source doesn't automatically make it unreliable.

Yes. RT and PressTV are government propaganda outlets hence the problem.

Dan, please. After the embarrassing complicity of the US media in such spectacularly clumsy government hoaxes as the Iraqi WMDs, is anyone here really in a position to get self-righteous with RT and PressTV? How are they qualitatively different from the Christian Science Monitor?

[Mancunium]

The CIA factbook is generally among the best online sources (for whatever that's worth) for the kind of stuff it's used to support in Wikipedia - basically demographic and economic info.

I agree. I was making the point that just because something is a Government source doesn't automatically make it unreliable.

Yes. RT and PressTV are government propaganda outlets hence the problem.

Dan, please. After the embarrassing complicity of the US media in such spectacularly clumsy government hoaxes as the Iraqi WMDs, is anyone here really in a position to get self-righteous with RT and PressTV? How are they qualitatively different from the Christian Science Monitor?

Hersch, please. The Christian Science Monitor was not a government mouthpiece in 2003. I found pages of results in Google Search of "christian science monitor iraq war 2003" that confirm that. For instance:

As attack on Iraq begins, question remains: Is it legal?
CSM, 21 March 2003: link

International-law experts are divided on whether Washington has the right to invade Iraq in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution specifically authorizing such an assault.

But most agree that President Bush cannot justify the war with his new doctrine of preemptive military action to forestall the threat that he says Saddam Hussein poses. Preemptive force "is extremely dangerous and flat-out illegal," says Jordan Paust, professor of international law at the University of Houston. "Implying a right to take out a regime that threatens us - that is quite threatening to the international legal order."

I also found some of Dan's articles on the war. Examples:

Iraq war: Predictions made, and results
A look back at some of the predicted US outcomes for the Iraq war, and what happened.
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / December 22, 2011 link

and

Is the detritus of the Iraq war harming the babies of Fallujah?
The claim has been made for years. Now, there's a medical report about the Iraq war that appears to back it up.
By Dan Murphy, Staff writer / October 29, 2012 link

Wikipedia believes there is some objective NPOV, which correspondences to Truth (T-H-L). In fact, Truth is unknown, and the best any of us can do is to approach it with sincerity, humility, and an open mind.

[DanMurphy]

The CIA factbook is generally among the best online sources (for whatever that's worth) for the kind of stuff it's used to support in Wikipedia - basically demographic and economic info.

I agree. I was making the point that just because something is a Government source doesn't automatically make it unreliable.

Yes. RT and PressTV are government propaganda outlets hence the problem.

Dan, please. After the embarrassing complicity of the US media in such spectacularly clumsy government hoaxes as the Iraqi WMDs, is anyone here really in a position to get self-righteous with RT and PressTV? How are they qualitatively different from the Christian Science Monitor?

They are crude propaganda operations, run at the behest of the states that own them. The NYT is not that, its shameful coverage of Iraq's nonexistent WMD programs notwithstanding (there is plenty to criticize in the too-cozy relationships of some American papers/reporters with those in power but it is qualitatively an entirely different thing).

In Libya in 2011, as Tripoli was being over-run by rebels and TV broadcasts will filled with the evidence that the city had fallen (the jubliant crowds in Green Square etc...) RT was reporting that the footage was being faked on a Doha soundstage by Al Jazeera, and that while there were crowds on the streets the capital, they were all chanting their love for Qaddafi and the gunfire to be heard was celebratory gunfire and fire works, celebrating the rebellion's defeat. It was quite amusing:

[Mancunium]

The CIA factbook is generally among the best online sources (for whatever that's worth) for the kind of stuff it's used to support in Wikipedia - basically demographic and economic info.

I agree. I was making the point that just because something is a Government source doesn't automatically make it unreliable.

Yes. RT and PressTV are government propaganda outlets hence the problem.

Dan, please. After the embarrassing complicity of the US media in such spectacularly clumsy government hoaxes as the Iraqi WMDs, is anyone here really in a position to get self-righteous with RT and PressTV? How are they qualitatively different from the Christian Science Monitor?

They are crude propaganda operations, run at the behest of the states that own them. The NYT is not that, its shameful coverage of Iraq's nonexistent WMD programs notwithstanding (there is plenty to criticize in the too-cozy relationships of some American papers/reporters with those in power but it is qualitatively an entirely different thing).

In Libya in 2011, as Tripoli was being over-run by rebels and TV broadcasts will filled with the evidence that the city had fallen (the jubliant crowds in Green Square etc...) RT was reporting that the footage was being faked on a Doha soundstage by Al Jazeera, and that while there were crowds on the streets the capital, they were all chanting their love for Qaddafi and the gunfire to be heard was celebratory gunfire and fire works, celebrating the rebellion's defeat. It was quite amusing:

I recall the RT coverage of the Libyan Civil War was incredibly clumsy and obvious propaganda. They are usually more clever. I subscribe to the RT channel on YouTube, and find it a useful source of information, but I also know RT is 100% funded by the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation, and always reflects the Russian government's views.

Try this, for instance:

West's warped vision of Russian gay life leads to 'crackdown' cries
posted by RT on 5 August 2013

[Hersch]

The CIA factbook is generally among the best online sources (for whatever that's worth) for the kind of stuff it's used to support in Wikipedia - basically demographic and economic info.

I agree. I was making the point that just because something is a Government source doesn't automatically make it unreliable.

Yes. RT and PressTV are government propaganda outlets hence the problem.

Dan, please. After the embarrassing complicity of the US media in such spectacularly clumsy government hoaxes as the Iraqi WMDs, is anyone here really in a position to get self-righteous with RT and PressTV? How are they qualitatively different from the Christian Science Monitor?

They are crude propaganda operations, run at the behest of the states that own them. The NYT is not that, its shameful coverage of Iraq's nonexistent WMD programs notwithstanding (there is plenty to criticize in the too-cozy relationships of some American papers/reporters with those in power but it is qualitatively an entirely different thing).

In Libya in 2011, as Tripoli was being over-run by rebels and TV broadcasts will filled with the evidence that the city had fallen (the jubliant crowds in Green Square etc...) RT was reporting that the footage was being faked on a Doha soundstage by Al Jazeera, and that while there were crowds on the streets the capital, they were all chanting their love for Qaddafi and the gunfire to be heard was celebratory gunfire and fire works, celebrating the rebellion's defeat. It was quite amusing:

Do you also find this amusing? It was all over the US media:

[Midsize Jake]

Do you also find this amusing? It was all over the US media...

What's your point here, Mr. Hersch? Are you trying to suggest that RT and PressTV are not government propaganda outlets? The mere fact that US media outlets were too-easily hoodwinked in the run-up to the Iraq invasion doesn't change that.

Personally, I can't get through more than 5 minutes of RT without laughing at how obvious it is. They're almost as bad as Fox News.

[Hersch]

Do you also find this amusing? It was all over the US media...

What's your point here, Mr. Hersch? Are you trying to suggest that RT and PressTV are not government propaganda outlets? The mere fact that US media outlets were too-easily hoodwinked in the run-up to the Iraq invasion doesn't change that.

Personally, I can't get through more than 5 minutes of RT without laughing at how obvious it is. They're almost as bad as Fox News.

That pretty much is my point. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. The entire "reliable sources" policy at Wikipedia, in which any "western" media outlet is considered axiomatically "reliable" while non-"western" sources are scorned, is a farce. Of course, this is just one more in a long line of Wikipedia policies that are fatally flawed. But a real encyclopedia would have much higher reliability standards than "it was in a newspaper."

I guess one further aspect of my point is that it shouldn't surprise me that people who live here would be acutely sensitive to propaganda in the other fellow's news media, while tolerant of, or oblivious to, propaganda in our own media. We're the good guys, right? We've always been at war with Eastasia.

[Zoloft]

I have met members of state-controlled media outlets in the long past. I have rubbed shoulders with (and bought Scotch for) journalists.

There is no real comparison.

Perhaps some journalists are lapdogs, but it's just mice over at any state-controlled media outlet. Shrill mice, at that.

Tell Carl Prine (T-H-L) that he's just a tool of the U. S. Government and corporate interests.

[Hersch]

I have met members of state-controlled media outlets in the long past. I have rubbed shoulders with (and bought Scotch for) journalists.

There is no real comparison.

Perhaps some journalists are lapdogs, but it's just mice over at any state-controlled media outlet. Shrill mice, at that.

Tell Carl Prine (T-H-L) that he's just a tool of the U. S. Government and corporate interests.

I'm not saying that there are no honest journalists. I'm just saying that the relationship of the media to the government, generally, is so corrupt in this country, that it makes us look hypocritical and ridiculous when we go around self-righteously pointing the finger at other nations and cultures.

Here's an interview with Sy Hersh (no relation), who makes some relevant points. He is a guy whom I respect as a journalist.

[Ca$hBag]

While there may be lots of truth to this, you have to remember that press TV is the Iranian version of fox news.

[Daniel Brandt]

Seymour Hersh, in my opinion the best investigative reporter since the 1960s, says that mainstream U.S. media sucks. When you have incompetent Wikipedia editors cherry-picking from U.S. media because they need "reliable sources," you get "sucks" raised to the next power.

[Hersch]

A bit of a teaser there:

...the death of Osama bin Laden. "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true," he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.

Hersh is writing a book about national security and has devoted a chapter to the bin Laden killing.

I'm looking forward to seeing what he will reveal. I always thought there was a dubious aroma about the White House version, and even if it were the gospel truth, I would still find it repugnant that we are asked to regard Obama as a Manly Man because he had bin Laden assassinated, when it would have clearly been very easy to capture him alive and put him on trial, like we used to do in the good old days.

[Vigilant]

A bit of a teaser there:

...the death of Osama bin Laden. "Nothing's been done about that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true," he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.

Hersh is writing a book about national security and has devoted a chapter to the bin Laden killing.

I'm looking forward to seeing what he will reveal. I always thought there was a dubious aroma about the White House version, and even if it were the gospel truth, I would still find it repugnant that we are asked to regard Obama as a Manly Man because he had bin Laden assassinated, when it would have clearly been very easy to capture him alive and put him on trial, like we used to do in the good old days.

*sigh*

This reminds me of the Jessica_Lynch (T-H-L) debacle.

[Mancunium]

How Iran Uses Wikipedia To Censor The Internet
Iran’s whitewashing of Wikipedia provides the first full picture of how the country censors the internet.
Buzzfeed, 12 November 2013 link

A new study from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School claims that Wikipedia might hold the key to understanding how Iran censors, and controls, the internet. The answer, in four words: with a heavy hand.

Reports of internet censorship in Iran have been a constant in the international media, but until now little was known about the specific systems and methods the country uses to restrict the flow of information online.

The study, which used proxy servers in Iran to scan Wikipedia’s Persian-language articles, found that out of 800,000 entries, the Iranian government blocked 1,187 Persian Wikipedia URLs that corresponded to 963 unique article pages, including 15 of the site’s top-100 Persian language articles. Of the top articles blocked, many contained “entries about homosexuality, orgasms, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and activist rapper Shahin Najafi,” according to the study.

According to Collin Anderson, the researcher in charge of the study, the growing popularity of Wikipedia’s Persian language site (new entries have grown tenfold since 2006) created a microcosm from which to study the Iranian internet as a whole. “It’s useful place to uncover the types of online content forbidden and an excellent template to identify keyword blocking themes and filtering rules that apply across the greater internet,” he told BuzzFeed.

[...]

Lengthy description with illustrations, such as:



Citation-Filtered
Annenberg School For Communication
University of Pennsylvania: link

Using proxy servers in Iran, researchers Collin Anderson and Nima Nazeri scanned 800,000 Persian language Wikipedia articles. Every blocked article was identified and blocked pages were divided into ten categories to determine the type of content to which state censors are most adverse. In total, 963 blocked articles were found, covering a range of socio-political and sexual content including politics, journalism, the arts, religion, sex, sexuality, and human rights. Censors repeatedly targeted Wikipedia pages about government rivals, minority religious beliefs, and criticisms of the state, officials, and the police. Just under half of the blocked Wiki-pages are biographies, including pages about individuals the authorities have allegedly detained or killed. Based on prior research, it is known that Iran’s Internet filtration relies on blacklists of specifically designated URLs and URL keywords. Keyword filtration blindly blocks pages that contain prohibited character patterns in the URL. Sexual content is the main target of keywords, for example most keywords are sexual and/or profane terms. We found dozens of pages that seem to be unintentionally censored by keyword filtering, meaning that they were misidentified as sexual or profane and contained no content likely to offend Iranian authorities. See below for infographic.

Full report (PDF link)

[Mancunium]

State of censorship: how Iran censors the internet (and how its citizens get around it)
PandoDaily, 12 November 2013 link

In 2009, you couldn’t talk about the Iranian elections and the ensuing protests without mentioning social media. “The Twitter Revolution,” they called it. “The Medium of the Movement.” The meme finally achieved the true distinction of “conventional wisdom” when Malcolm Gladwell felt compelled to dispute it.

But the problem with the narrative wasn’t, as Charles Krauthammer put it, that “Twitter cannot stop a bullet.” It’s that at the time of the protests there were only up to 18,000 Iranians on Twitter, according to Collin Anderson, a researcher who studies Internet freedom in Iran. Most of the tweets that Westerners spread around originated in other countries, wrote Radio Free Europe’s Golnaz Esfandiari at Foreign Policy. In fact, Anderson tells me that perhaps the biggest legacy of Twitter and the Green Movement is that after the protests the government began to associate social media with anti-state sentiment more than ever.

[... more interesting stuff ...

(By the way, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavī was a friend of mine; he used to send me beautiful books, autographed with lovely personal notes, every Christmas)

[SB_Johnny]

If the WMF was disbanded and Penn's Annenberg SfC was put in charge of "the project", we'd have pretty much nothing to do here.

[Mancunium]

If the WMF was disbanded and Penn's Annenberg SfC was put in charge of "the project", we'd have pretty much nothing to do here.

And did you notice how, as much as I wanted to, I refrained from quoting Nima Nazeri & Collin Anderson's entire report?

[EricBarbour]

If the WMF was disbanded and Penn's Annenberg SfC was put in charge of "the project", we'd have pretty much nothing to do here.

And did you notice how, as much as I wanted to, I refrained from quoting Nima Nazeri & Collin Anderson's entire report?

And we really appreciate it. Please, don't bury us in walls of text. We've seen too many people do that before, and most of us do not have time to read or decode it all. Please, just post a summary. Thank you.

[thekohser]

If the WMF was disbanded and Penn's Annenberg SfC was put in charge of "the project", we'd have pretty much nothing to do here.

And did you notice how, as much as I wanted to, I refrained from quoting Nima Nazeri & Collin Anderson's entire report?

I appreciate it from the perspective of it helping Wikipediocracy members to be able to say with a straight face that we respect the value of copyright.

[Mancunium]

If the WMF was disbanded and Penn's Annenberg SfC was put in charge of "the project", we'd have pretty much nothing to do here.

And did you notice how, as much as I wanted to, I refrained from quoting Nima Nazeri & Collin Anderson's entire report?

And we really appreciate it. Please, don't bury us in walls of text. We've seen too many people do that before, and most of us do not have time to read or decode it all. Please, just post a summary. Thank you.

An executive summary henceforth it will be.
Incidentallly, I share your extreme anger.

If the WMF was disbanded and Penn's Annenberg SfC was put in charge of "the project", we'd have pretty much nothing to do here.

And did you notice how, as much as I wanted to, I refrained from quoting Nima Nazeri & Collin Anderson's entire report?

I appreciate it from the perspective of it helping Wikipediocracy members to be able to say with a straight face that we respect the value of copyright.

I had never considered that, and have no idea what the rules are for reproducing copyright material in a website like this.
Incidentally, I share your mellow affability.

One of my biggest handicaps IRL is the absence of earnest appraisal from those around me (and I don't consider advice from The Telegraph and the Daily Mail to be constructive criticism).
Moving along:

Citation Filtered: Iran's Censorship of Wikipedia
Iranian, 13 November 2013 link

[...same infographic as in posts supra...]

Les articles sur l’homosexualité, le corps humain et Rafsandjani censurés sur Wikipedia Iran
JSS News, 13 November 2013 link

[...same info as in posts supra, but in French and with more editorializing...]

[Mancunium]

With Both Scalpel and Cudgel, Iran Censors Wikipedia
TechPresident, 13 November 2013 link

Summary:

What do the BBC, the Bahá'í faith and Emma Watson have in common?

[thekohser]

With Both Scalpel and Cudgel, Iran Censors Wikipedia
TechPresident, 13 November 2013 link

I left a comment:

It is alarming that Iran would censor so much content, but then again, right here in the US of A, Wikipedia censored a page about Carolyn Doran, a convicted felon who was once the Chief Operating Officer of the Wikimedia Foundation. Despite her life story being covered in detail in numerous independent reliable sources over the years, the Wikipedia "community" said that she wasn't noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia biography, and it was deleted. But the whole process really did stink of "the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't want to be shamed with an article about this person", and so it was blissfully made to disappear.

[Mancunium]

Comments today in iranian.com link

[...] this article only highlights HALF of the story. The other half is that Wikipedia itself is censured and cleaned up in ways that the Iranian regime could not even execute. Wikipedia is touted as an open source of information. However, its current structure, either by design or not, allows entities interested in suppressing and censuring information to alter the content of Wikipedia. If a topic has any political or cultural aspect, one can bet that Wikipedia contains whitewashed information biased toward Western governments and institution and their allies.

[...] One of my favorite Wiki entries is "deiranisation" of Bahrain by UK in order to alter the demographics of Bahrain, then force a vote and split the island from Iran as an independent nation. The entry is telling in how terse it is: two paragraphs, six sentences as of Novemver 2013. One has to weigh the brevity of this entry against the massive effect that it has had and continues to have in the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf. [...]

[Mancunium]

This appears to be an update on an earlier report of this study ("Wikipedia Report Near Final MM Draft").

Iran vs. the internet, Persian Wikipedia
Iran Daily Brief, 8 January 2014 link

A new report examines the extent of Internet censorship in Iran. “Citation Filtered: Iran’s Censorship of Wikipedia,” released by the Iran Media Program at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School of Communications and the Human Rights in Iran Unit at the City University of New York’s Brooklyn College, tackles the censorship of Persian-language articles on Wikipedia. The report was submitted to UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran Ahmed Shaheed.

Citation Filtered: Iran's Censorship of Wikipedia link

Introduction
The Iranian government has had an uneasy relationship with the Internet. Top telecommunications and security officials have called the Internet“dirty,” “dangerous for societies,” a tool of “seditionists,” a threat to Iranian culture for promoting “liberalism” and humanism” and a place for “unethical business” and criminality.In September 2013,Iran’s new moderate president Hassan Rouhani said, however, that he believes in the right of all Iranians to access online information and that his government’s efforts are aimed towards this end. Still, he added that access to the Internet must fall within certain legal and cultural limits. Like many states, the Islamic Republic of Iran prioritizes what it censors, while weighing its domestic business needs, popular demand, and technical and resource limitations. Thus far, Iranian authorities have gone to great lengths to devise a legal and
institutional framework that facilitates widespread censorship of the Internet. From the Computer Crimes Law, which requires Internet service providers to block a wide range of online content, to the Supreme Council of Cyberspace's monopolization of regulatory control, state efforts appear to have been aimed at reining in a medium that is by its nature open and unruly. So what do Iranian state censors want to forbid Internet users from seeing or saying?

[Mancunium]

Iran Takes Aim at Google, Wikipedia in Latest Internet Censorship Effort
Mashable, 16 May 2014 link

Google and Wikipedia appear to be the latest victims of Iran's online censorship efforts, just two days after the Iranian government repeated — once again — that it's planning to loosen its grip on the Internet. Iran has reportedly blocked access to another Google service, the hosting platform Google Sites, and censored at least two sensitive Wikipedia pages in Farsi in the last couple of days. It's unclear at this point if these blocks are government mandated, but if they are, activists think think they would expose the Iranian government's double-sided stance on Internet freedom. [...] On Wednesday, Iran announced that it was planning to loosen Internet censorship by using so-called "smart filters," which would allow the government to block only specific "depraved and immoral" websites and leave others untouched, according to Communications Minister Mahmoud Vaezi.

Iran has a long history of blocking Wikipedia sites, as previous research has shown, but these latest blocks, activists warn, seem to indicate that the future is more of the same, rather than more freedom. "The fact that pages on Wikipedia are now being censored is a troubling harbinger of a tighter hold on access to information, as opposed to the notion that these new technologies will allow for 'looser censorship,'" Mahsa Alimardani, an Iranian Internet researcher based in Toronto, told Mashable. On Friday, Nariman Gharib, an Iranian researcher based in London reported that the Wikipedia pages about the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the one about the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran were inaccessible within Iran. [...] Google declined to comment for this story, while Wikipedia sent the following statement:

"Wikipedia exists to ensure all knowledge is available for everyone, especially those in places where information is limited or controlled. We resist censorship in all its forms."

One of the two blocked Farsi Wikipedia articles: link

[Poetlister]

During a recent event titled “Professional meeting on the application of Wikipedia tactics in communications”, held at Iran’s Ministry of Culture, a female audience member asked:

“So as Wikipedia, or as its managers, can you intervene based on the relationships you assume exist between different accounts? For example can you claim that certain users are collaborating with each other?”

Instead of replying to the question, one of the presenters of the all male panel laughs and says:

“Let’s put it this way, these guys here play the role of Vezarat-e-Ershad in Wikipedia. Meaning they can close one account, open another, give warnings etc. But they are even stronger than Vezarat-e-Ershad. They have the keys in their hands. It’s just like when Vezarat-e-Ershad prevents the publishing of a particular newspaper, so that it’s not automatically published.”

Open Democracy

I don't know how significant it is that a female asked the question. No surprise that in Iran they had an all male panel.

[Ada Sinn]

It would be interesting to see how many of Persian Wikipedia users are female, and of those females, how many are exiles living abroad.

[Vigilant]

It would be interesting to see how many of Persian Wikipedia users are female, and of those females, how many are exiles living abroad.

That would be an interesting demographic to break down into constituent groups...

*** The schreechy noises of Imagine Dragons or some other trendy but feeble impersonation of listenable music permeates the room bringing all conversation to a halt ***

All hail the dear leader!

Sounds like an excellent project for the new WMF 2030 And Bust team!

As a global south target, Iranian persons who identify as female is a demographic that requires immediate study with full resources!

The WMF will more than likely setting up a command post in the Galapagos Islands with a backup command post in Tahiti to manage this urgently needed project.

Twelve (12) Wikipedians-in-Residence will more than likely soon be appointed|anointed, one (1) in every other time zone, to push this glorious mission forward.

Acting for the WMF leadership in place of real leadership, the Air Mile Mafia will commit to visit each command post at least twice a year to monitor progress and push our great dream forward ....

All hail the dear leader!

[Randy from Boise]

N.B. It is standard for Spanish names not to include the matronym suffix... Thus: Fidel Castro, not Fidel Castro Ruz.

RfB

[tarantino]

All hail the dear leader!

Maria is half Persian, don't you know.

[Poetlister]

It would be interesting to see how many of Persian Wikipedia users are female, and of those females, how many are exiles living abroad.

You could determine how many editors are abroad by a mass checkuser, though of course some of that will be Iranian residents on holiday. There will also be people who have always been in Iraq for example who speak Persian.

[Poetlister]

Sina Zekavat describes in his piece for OpenDemocracy how he found major differences between pages on Iranian events, the country’s history and politics in English and in Persian. Content in English gives much more nuanced context, often with hundreds of verified sources; the Persian versions read like rote pro-government propaganda with dead links and footnotes to government-sponsored news outlets.

In 2007, Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales praised an Iranian contributor for his defiance (see his video for Amnesty International on free speech here). But the Iranian Ministry of Culture — which is responsible for the country’s “media management” — seems to work together with the non-profit Persian Wikipedia organization, and now there are talks to incorporate it into its ministry as an affiliated NGO.

“Registering Persian Wikipedia as a so called Non Governmental Organization in a state institution that is in charge of the country’s censorship apparatus can only be described as an Orwellian event,” Zekavat wrote in his article.

Codastory.com