Wikipedia, a structured and dynamic archive of all human understanding, depends on a cadre of anonymous volunteer editors to operate. Wiki editors dedicate hours of their time refining entries, clashing with one another, and striving to present a coherent depiction of the truth online. As disclosed by leaked materials acquired by Forward, the Heritage Foundation intends to “identify and target” these anonymous editors.

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank and the creators of Project 2025. As reported by Forward, Heritage distributed a presentation that described a strategy to expose Wikipedia editors to Jewish organizations, claiming it to be a continuous endeavor to counter antisemitism.

The trio of slides is subtle yet presents a negative scenario. The objective is to “identify and target Wikipedia editors misusing their role by examining text patterns, usernames, and technical information through breach data scrutiny, fingerprinting, HUMINT, and technical targeting,” as stated on the initial slide.

Heritage’s strategy includes utilizing a blend of techniques to single out Wikipedia editors in order for the think tank to uncover their actual identities. To achieve this, Heritage plans to “deploy managed sock puppet accounts to detect habits and trigger responses, information revelation,” and “promote specific subjects to disclose further identity-associated details.”

The slides describe how Heritage’s agents would fabricate accounts to interact with Wikipedia editors. It also mentioned employing “neuro-linguistic programming” to “recognize writing styles, recurrent expressions, and content trends.” Agents would even verify the editor’s behavior on alternate platforms to reveal their identity.

Neither the Heritage Foundation nor the Wikimedia Foundation provided feedback to Gizmodo’s request for comment.

In the recent past, Wikipedia has become a point of contention for conservatives, facing allegations of antisemitism and criticisms of being “overly woke.”

Supporters of Israel have been displeased with the platform’s treatment of Israel’s conflict in Gaza for years, and several Jewish media sources have accused the site of antisemitism. It’s a complex issue dating back years, with recent tensions involving the legal interpretation of “Genocide” and Wikipedia’s portrayal of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Wiki editors have also been rebuked for classifying the Anti-Defamation League as an unreliable reference regarding the conflict. Holocaust scholars have since argued that the editors are skewing the memory of the atrocity.

The conservative crusade against Wikipedia intensified two days before Christmas when Libs of TikTok expressed outrage on X that the site had expended funds on “equity.” Wikipedia, backed by contributions, makes public its financial data annually for scrutiny. According to these reports, the foundation spent $31.2 million on “equity.” This was excessive for Libs of TikTok and Elon Musk, who urged people to cease donations to the site.

What was done with the $31.2 million by Wikipedia? A significant portion was dispensed as grant money. In the Middle East, it financed the Arab Reports for Investigative Journalism, aiding in training journalists in Arab regions. In Brazil, it supported the InternetLab, utilizing the funds to explore racial inequalities and internet access. In North America, financial support was given to the Racial Equity in Journalism Fund, aiding local news reporting efforts.

Modifying Wikipedia is consistently a battle. The volunteer editors aren’t united; they’re persistently adjusting, debating, and disputing over the essence of truth. It functions, essentially, as a vast community annotation of all human knowledge. And social media platform executives seem to hold a particular fondness for community notes.

Wikipedia even keeps a record of the edits and exchanges for each entry. The dialogues often prove to be more engrossing than the articles themselves. Wikipedia’s extensive history of covering the Israel-Palestine conflict features its own detailed entry, complete with a substantial and elaborate history of edits, discussions, and disputes.