Estonian journalists and Wikimedia volunteers have sounded the alarm over a systematic effort to rewrite Estonia’s history on English-language Wikipedia, presenting it in a more Soviet-friendly light that undermines the country’s historical continuity.

Digimeedia journalist Roland Liive discovered that the birthplaces of hundreds of prominent Estonians have been altered on Wikipedia from “Estonia” to “Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic” and “Soviet Union.” These changes affect profiles ranging from EU High Representative Kaja Kallas to WRC champion Ott Tänak and supermodel Carmen Kass.

Estonia was occupied twice by the Soviet Union—from 1940-1941 and 1944-1991. When the country regained independence in 1991, it restored the republic originally founded in 1918. Estonia’s official position maintains that while the Republic of Estonia was illegally and de facto occupied by the Soviet Union, it never ceased to exist during that time. Therefore, anyone born during the Soviet occupation was still born in Estonia, not in the “Estonian SSR.”

Robert Treufeldt, chairman of the board of Wikimedia Estonia, explained on ETV’s morning program “Terevisioon” that the controversy began with discussions in Lithuania. Following votes in which no identifiable Estonian users participated, descriptions like “Tallinn, Estonian SSR, USSR” became the standard for people born in Tallinn during the occupation period.

“Unfortunately, if you look at who took part in that vote, there were no identifiable Estonian usernames. There was someone from Canada, someone from Yemen,” Treufeldt noted. He suggested that the decision was made by users unfamiliar with Baltic and Soviet history.

The systematic nature of these edits points to a coordinated effort. According to Liive, who investigated the phenomenon, a single user has altered nearly 600 profiles of notable Estonians. In one instance, this user spent nearly 22 consecutive hours redacting Estonian historical information.

“This is not a technical correction; it is a deliberate attempt to erase the legal continuity of the Republic of Estonia,” Liive wrote in a LinkedIn post, characterizing the campaign as “mass manipulation on an industrial scale.”

When Estonian volunteers attempted to correct these changes, they reportedly faced bans for “pushing a nationalistic narrative.” Meanwhile, articles like Kaja Kallas’s have been locked in what Liive describes as their “distorted pro-Kremlin state,” preventing further factual corrections.

Treufeldt suggests these activities may be part of a broader influence campaign. “Behind this rewriting of history are often users who express Russian chauvinistic views and act in alignment with Russian interests,” he said, noting that user profiles often reveal such orientations.

The problem extends beyond birthplace designations. Liive pointed out that the Estonian War of Independence is being reframed, with “defensive campaign” replaced by “offensive campaign” in several key articles. Estonia’s independence is increasingly characterized as “separatism from Russia,” language that aligns with contemporary Russian imperialist rhetoric.

Estonian volunteers face significant challenges in addressing these issues. First, Wikipedia relies on volunteer monitoring across all language versions, making systematic oversight difficult. Second, Estonia’s perspective competes with Russia’s narrative in a global information environment where Soviet influence remains strong in many regions.

“What was once called the Third World has actually been heavily influenced by the Soviet Union. So a pro-Russian information environment is still quite acceptable in much of Latin America, Africa, and Asia,” Treufeldt explained.

The resource imbalance presents perhaps the greatest challenge. Russia’s state-backed information operations vastly outmatch the capabilities of Estonian volunteers. “Who would take on the task of ensuring that the ‘Estonian version’ prevails globally? Competing with Russia in terms of resources is quite difficult,” Treufeldt acknowledged.

As digital platforms increasingly shape historical understanding, these Wikipedia edits highlight how online encyclopedias have become, in Liive’s words, “a battlefield for hybrid warfare.” The situation raises critical questions about how small nations can protect their historical narratives against well-resourced campaigns to rewrite their past.