Kidnapped deletion storm: The secret protocol of Wikipedia editors exposed

The discussion took place within the framework of the decision-making mechanism of the Hebrew Wikipedia, and it revolved around a principled proposal to determine whether abductions and abductees have encyclopedic importance by the very nature of the abduction, or whether each entry should be examined according to the usual rules. In the protocols, the editors appear by nicknames only, as is customary in Wikipedia, without personal identification.

“Importance only for those who were not released in the first deal”

At the beginning of the discussion, several options were presented. One of them stated that all the abductions and the abductees have encyclopedic importance as part of a defining historical event. Another option sought to give importance to all those who were not released in the first deal, arguing that they had become public figures following frequent and continuous mention. Other proposals tried to formulate unique criteria, such as symbolism, political affinity or cultural resonance, or to establish that the values ​​would first be written as drafts and tested in a dedicated project.

“Wikipedia is not a memorial site”

One of the central axes of the discussion was the question of whether Wikipedia should also be used as an arena for personal commemoration. The software editor Michael Tsavan said at one stage: “Wikipedia is not a memorial site. We leave this important work to other organizations.” On the other hand, other editors claimed that in the case of the abductees it was an unusual reality. The editor of the AviStav software claimed: “Each and every abductee received extensive individual public attention, day by day and week by week, at rally after rally. This is what made them public figures.”

Wikipedia’s decision

Throughout the discussion, the editors repeatedly returned to the question of congestion. The editor of the AviStav software said: “We all invest valuable time in important discussions on a topic close to our hearts, and this comes at the expense of writing and improving other values.” These things were used as a central argument against establishing special criteria that could open a wave of individual discussions on each value.

At the end of the procedure, a rating vote was held, in which dozens of editors participated. The option chosen in the end determined that no unique criteria would be applied to the values ​​of the abductions and the abductees. This means that each entry will be examined according to the accepted policy in Wikipedia, without an advantage or disadvantage arising from the very act of hijacking.

Despite this, the minutes show that the decision did not close the value debate. As one of the editors wrote in the summary of the discussion: “The decision will not prevent important discussions in the future. Time will tell if it will shorten them or just postpone the dispute.”