Available on Wikipedia, terror manuals showing fanatics how to launch van attacks
JIHADI propaganda describing how to launch a van attack was still available on Wikipedia last night – as it became the latest internet giant to be accused of aiding terrorism.
In the days before and hours after Thursday’s attack in Barcelona, the online encyclopaedia provided links to dozens of Islamic State and Al Qaeda magazines.
One IS publication encouraged would-be terrorists to use a hire vehicle to attack public places because they are ‘successful in harvesting large numbers of kuffar [non-believers]’. It comes just two months after Theresa May announced that internet giants which refuse to take down ‘ poisonous propaganda’ could face multi-million pound fines.
Until now, Wikipedia has largely avoided the spotlight. But the Daily Mail can reveal that the online encyclopaedia allowed links to official literature from two of
the world’s most feared terror groups to be uploaded just 12 days ago.
Vile material still available on the site yesterday included an article published just six days ago from Al Qaeda’s ‘official’ magazine, which praised ‘lone jihadis’ including Westminster terrorist Khalid Masood.
Another link was to an IS magazine encouraging vehicle attacks akin to Thursday’s rampage. Since the magazine’s publication in November, similar links have also appeared on Google, Facebook and Twitter.
However, Facebook and Twitter removed the links when contacted by the Mail in March. Some links to the material remain on Google for academic reasons.
Wikipedia’s pages can be written and edited by any member of the public but it is said to be moderated by around 130,000 ‘editors’. However the potential ease in access- ing the propaganda was yesterday met with astonishment by MPs. Tory MP Charlie Elphicke said it was ‘incredible’ that Wikipedia was making this material available.
‘They need to take urgent action to make sure it is removed,’ he said. ‘This highlights the importance of the attempts of companies like Facebook, YouTube and now Wikipedia to be vigilant before taking firm action against material that aids terrorists.’ Dr Hany Farid, an adviser to the Counter Extremism Project think-tank, said: ‘We are seeing real harm which is a direct result of the failure of internet companies to act. Wikipedia and others absolutely have the ability to root out and squash this material.’
Inflammatory extremist material was also available on YouTube in the days before the Barcelona attack, the Mail can reveal. One video, posted on August 14, features a jihadi telling the camera: ‘Liberate yourself by killing a kuffar.’ In the wake of Thursday’s attack the videos had been removed.
Wikipedia did not respond to requests for comment last night. However in a discussion section on the Wikipedia page containing links to IS magazines, the firm says it is part of a project ‘to improve coverage of Islamrelated articles’ on its site.
NICE, Berlin, London, Stockholm, London again – and now Barcelona and Cambrils. As we grieve again for terror victims and their families, there’s a temptation to think little can be done to stop Islamist fanatics from venting their pointless bloodlust.
But there is something politicians and the public can and must do. We all have an obligation to help root out those who encourage impressionable young zealots to murder and maim for deluded ends that no amount of bloodshed will ever achieve.
In Britain, this week’s news that tip-offs to the anti-terror hotline surged sixfold in six months offered an encouraging sign that peace-loving citizens, not least in Muslim communities, are waking up to our shared duty of vigilance. But one group shows no such responsibility. The shocking truth is that even after scores of murders, arrogant internet giants still drag their feet over taking down inflammatory material.
Google continues to direct would-be jihadis to terrorist training videos and antiWestern rants posted on YouTube.
Meanwhile, as the Mail reveals today, Wikipedia hosts links to dozens of editions of Islamic State’s recruitment magazine – complete with exhortations to ‘kill infidels’ and a guide to causing maximum carnage in a hired van.
Can this be the same, smug Wikipedia – notorious purveyor of false information – which banned the Mail as a source, on the say-so of five administrators and just 53 of its 30 million editors?
By what perversion of the moral order can this tainted website seek to censor a thoroughly researched and regulated mainstream newspaper, while blithely publishing incitements to mass murder?
Bringing these recklessly irresponsible web titans within the law won’t guarantee our safety. But it must be an essential step to denying the killers the propaganda on which they feed and multiply.