French Wikipedians v. Le Point (2025)
On Saturday, February 15, 2025, after contributing to the Wikipedia article about the magazine Le Point, FredD received an email sent from the professional address of Erwan Seznec, a journalist at Le Point, which included the following comments : “We are going to write an article about you, on our site, giving your identity, your position, and requesting an official reaction from [FredD’s employer].” The same journalist also obtained FredD’s personal telephone number and contacted him through that means.
Erwan Seznec (December 13, 2024) “Wikipédia, plongée dans la fabrique d’une manipulation” Le Point
For several months, a handful of radicalized individuals have been working to give Le Point a disastrous image, portraying our magazine on Wikipedia as “Islamophobic,” “far-right”, and of questionable ethics and reliability. For instance, Wikipedia states that Le Point has “repeatedly engaged in acts of defamation against ‘Le Monde diplomatique.’”
To support their accusations of “ethical breaches,” contributors to the Wikipedia page rely on “secondary sources,” as per the rules, consisting of articles from activist blogs or opinions issued by the CDJM (Conseil de déontologie journalistique et de médiation / Council for Journalism Ethics and Mediation), which itself has been manipulated. And so, the cycle is complete.
Certain articles from Le Point dealing with Islamism, gender issues, or radical ecology have displeased the Wikipedia contributors. Unable to challenge well-researched investigations, their strategy is to undermine the credibility of the messenger as a whole.
***
Half of Le Point’s Wikipedia page was written by a contributor named “JMGuyon”.
We believe we have identified her.
She appears to be a freelance translator and writer based in southern France.
To support her accusations of Islamophobia against Le Point, JMGuyon cites a study claiming that between 2013 and 2015, “86% of the magazine’s covers related to Islam were negative.” This figure unscrupulously conflates Islam and Islamism, labeling as “Islamophobic” the 2015 covers on the Charlie Hebdo massacre or the Bataclan attacks!
JMGuyon’s obsessions sometimes veer into the absurd. She edited the biographical page of our editorial director, Valérie Toranian, accusing her of having given the women’s magazine ‘Elle’, which she led from 2002 to 2014, “a far-right Islamophobic orientation.” Yet, the only issue at stake was defending women against the oppression of radical Islamism.
JMGuyon is supported in her relentless undermining efforts by a few other contributors. Among them, “Sijyuis” and “Lewisiscrazy”. We have also identified these two experienced Wikipedia users : they are, respectively, a history professor in Rennes and a research director in a chemistry lab affiliated with the CNRS (Centre national de la recherche scientifique) in Marseille. These contributors, all of whom declined our requests for interviews, hold strong opinions on many topics.
***
For years, Wikipedia users have relentlessly portrayed her as the worst kind of reactionary. “At one point, I lost sleep over it,” confides the editorialist, “but then I came to terms with it. When you’re attacked on Wikipedia, you have to accept that you have no right to defend yourself — otherwise, you’ll be accused of self-promotion.” Leading the charge against Eugénie Bastié? Once again, Lewisiscrazy and Sijysuis!
TV host Mac Lesggy faced the same roadblock. Because he defends conventional agriculture, he is portrayed as being in the pocket of the agro-industry lobbies. He was “strongly advised” not to intervene on his own Wikipedia page, which, like others, was sabotaged by anonymous contributors.
Geographer Sylvie Brunel has been branded with the infamous label of “climate skeptic” for having, in the past, dared to downplay the extent of climate change and criticize alarmist rhetoric that, in her view, ignores the needs of the developing world. For her critics, this constitutes a clear-cut case of thought crime. She tried in vain to have her page edited. “Wikipedia is no longer an encylopedia,” she concludes. “It’s an unacknowledged social network.”
***
When contacted, Wikimedia France deflected responsibility. The organization hides behind a general disclaimer, claiming it is not accountable for what contributors publish.
A handful of hyperactive contributors can turn a Wikipedia page into their personal territory and distort reality for months, even years.
What remains of an encyclopedia when it has lost all credibility?
Le Point has formally put the Wikimedia Foundation — Wikipedia’s parent organisation — on legal notice as of February 17, signalling its intent to fight what it said it viewed as an ideological smear campagin.
