📢NEW: HAF RESPONDS. After our investigation into the networks shaping the @HinduAmerican profile, we sat down with their leadership for an extended conversation.
They address the allegations, disputed claims, and editor activity examined in our reporting.
Watch the full interview with @AshleyRindsberg.
Link in comments 👇
📢NEW: HAF RESPONDS. After our investigation into the networks shaping the @HinduAmerican profile, we sat down with their leadership for an extended conversation.
They address the allegations, disputed claims, and editor activity examined in our reporting.
Watch the full interview with @AshleyRindsberg.
Link in comments 👇
🚨NEW INVESTIGATION: A Fortune 500 company reportedly cancelled a @HinduAmerican training session after employees circulated its Wikipedia page.
That page tells readers HAF aligns with Hindu nationalism, threatens academic freedom, and has been accused of acting as a foreign agent.
We traced who built that narrative. The same handful of accounts kept appearing across HAF, its critics, activist groups, and key public figures—building an interconnected narrative that now feeds Google and AI systems.
Full investigation in thread. Receipts 👇
Just four Wikipedia accounts can smear the reputation of an organization like the Hindu American Foundation.
Think this an isolated case?
BTW, Ashley Rindsberg (@NPOV) does some of the best reporting about Wikipedia and its bias—not just left-wing bias. Follow.
Where does Wikipedia's version of @AlJazeera come from? One editor account appears repeatedly across related pages — shaping how funding, governance, and editorial independence are framed. Google summarizes that version. ChatGPT repeats it. Journalists cite it.
Full analysis by @AshleyRindsberg and @TobyDersh 👇
As featured in @RCPolitics.
🚨NEW INVESTIGATION: A Fortune 500 company reportedly cancelled a @HinduAmerican training session after employees circulated its Wikipedia page.
That page tells readers HAF aligns with Hindu nationalism, threatens academic freedom, and has been accused of acting as a foreign agent.
We traced who built that narrative. The same handful of accounts kept appearing across HAF, its critics, activist groups, and key public figures—building an interconnected narrative that now feeds Google and AI systems.
Full investigation in thread. Receipts 👇
A search engine used by schools and recommended as a "safe" resource for children:
-The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is "a special part of Iran's military"
-Ali Khamenei is described as supporting Iran's nuclear program for "peaceful uses".
- Uyghur article contains no mention of allegations of genocide, persecution, detention camps, forced labor, or other human-rights concerns involving China
Most parents have never heard of Kiddle. Yet it has quietly embedded itself in classrooms, libraries, and educational tools.
Now it's launching AI for kids.
Full article 👇
🚨NEW INVESTIGATION🚨 An anonymous Wikipedia editor deleted 6,500 words covering Al Jazeera's funding and ties to Qatar's government. In a single day.
That's just January 2026. Here's the full record:
→ 68.2% of the "Al Jazeera effect" article — the entry that frames the network as a democratising force — authored by User:Cinaroot
→ "State media" category tag removed from the infobox
→ Senior Qatari royal family members removed from the article lead
→ To 'prove' Al Jazeera is independent, User:Cinaroot paid $37 out of pocket to cite a paper from a university
→ Paper came from Georgetown's Doha campus. Qatar has paid Georgetown $1bn+.
The result: Wikipedia now describes Al Jazeera as "independent." Google, ChatGPT and Perplexity treat Wikipedia as ground truth.
This is citogenesis at institutional scale. And it's all in the public edit record. Read the full investigation by @TobyDersh and @AshleyRindsberg for @thecipherbrief 👇
We replicated this in Claude. Same results.
State-linked and militant-aligned organizations can publish at scale and end up in Wikipedia, Google, and AI training data. By the time information reaches readers through search or AI, the sourcing is gone. What survives is the framing.
Wikipedia has a page about a Palestinian Islamic Jihad commander. 3/4 sources are the terror group's own media outlets. That's not vandalism. The citations passed review. The page stayed up.
Here's the pipeline: A militant outlet publishes → Wikipedia editor cites it → search engines index it → AI systems ingest it → users read it as fact.
This is how your information environment gets shaped without anyone noticing. 👇
When we asked ChatGPT for a summary of this commander, ChatGPT described him as "skilled," "respected" — exact language from the terror group's media, cited in Wikipedia.
Terror group's media → Wikipedia citation → LLM training data → ChatGPT output describing a terrorist in flattering terms. 👇
"We are engaged online in daily warfare. It's an information war. It's on every platform."
Wikipedia. AI. Google. Podcasts. The battlefield is everywhere and most of us don't know we're in it.
Watch the full conversation with @AshleyRindsberg and @jonsac 👇