Have they never been on Wikipedia before. You can already see the edits and attribution. If their information is correct they should submit an edit and offer proof. Going to be hard for them to sweep the Palestinian genocide under the rug though.
this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
572 points (100.0% liked)
Not The Onion
15788 readers
1694 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This
Bias against Israel is similar to bias against racism/genocide, there is nothing bad about this at this fucking point
I don’t like any bias in my soup please
You're going to eat your bias and like it!
Bias is not making judgements based on facts and history.
Can you not literally see the edit history of Wikipedia articles?
The report actually suggests a new bias and neutrality editing framework with its own edit history, unrelated to existing content editing tools.
In other words, the argument is that the current editing framework does not do enough to specifically address bias and neutrality. That seems pretty clear to me regardless of current events.
I know edits to add and correct bias do happen. I agree it would be nice if power editors, at least, were not anonymous. I wish there was a Wikipedia that could only be edited be verified, trusted experts. The potential is there with the fediverse. And in fact I thought Wikipedia was working on this. I requested an invite but never got one.
Such edits for neutrality (as well as to insert bias) are made. There is a history. It is talked about and recorded. It is searchable. It is distributed. Man, you should hear these Wikipedia editors talk to each other if you haven't, it's like a different language.
Anyway: the source article suggests an extra layer to that system, with public standards and criteria supported by research, which it also proposed, and suggests that editors could be monitored for bias based on such standards.
I see the potential for draconian abuse but this is one website. As I said, I hoped there would be a fediverse instance to consolidate legitimate expert, factual information. Someone shared a website with me the other day that included such technical analysis for current events. I will link it when I get another minute.
E: here's that link https://www.sciencemediacentre.org
The current platform does enough to address bias and neutrality. If you are doing so bad you want a lopsided view of what you did, you're supposed to fork it and let it die like other free speech oppressors do, not compile PDF with stupid suggestions to mainline.
A wikipedia written by only verified trusted experts is called an encyclopedia, we have those online now. I think there was once a wikipedia-like online encyclopedia way back when in the late 90s or early 2000s that would only allow verified experts in whichever subject to participate to edit and create articles. I can't find what I'm talking about atm but it basically died from lack of participation and only had a hundred or so entries.
I agree it would be nice if power editors, at least, were not anonymous.
Everything has to be sourced from a reputable source. So I don't see why this is a huge problem. As long as they're sourcing their edits, and using reputable, verifiable sources, why should it matter if they're anonymous or not?
Also, reading the 3 pages of recommendations again, I don't think that's what it said:
Transparent Editing History: Ensure that all changes to articles are transparent and traceable.
This helps in identifying editors who may consistently introduce bias into articles.
That sounds like normal editing history for everything to me.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
By the almighty god that lives in fantasy land known as heaven, can those genocidal monsters shut up already?
That sounds like antisemitic hate speech...
You'll need to publish your full name now.
load more comments
(5 replies)
this PDF will probably be referenced in the “genocide denial” article in the not-too-distant future
The present report does not seem intended to be an academic publication, although it has already been used as a citation in the article Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
But primary research isn't allowed as a source on Wikipedia...
(someone smarter than me correct me if im wrong but) in this case it’s considered a non-primary source since the article is citing what the WJC said about Wikipedia (their criticism), not the WJC’s original research on the subject.
disclaimer have edited wikipedia maybe once in my life, only a small clue what im talking about
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
"Balanced and Zionist in nature."
He said the quiet part out loud.
Balanced and Zionist
"The pancakes should be tasty and composed primarily of vomit"
load more comments
(1 replies)
How about you go fuck yourself instead?
No red flags here at all.
All good. Make sure those dissenters get revealed.
I just -- wtf is wrong with the world rn...?
The zionist scum hate Wikipedia because its hard to call it antisemitic
load more comments
(9 replies)
They can always fork it and see how it goes.
The Israelis failed to learn the lessons from WW II, because their playbook is from the NKVD and SS. Make peace morons.
They did learn… there using it in smaller form.
I just love the absolutely hysterical desperation in the hasbara's every attempt to try and rescue the contrived (and thoroughly undeserved) PR image Israel once had thanks to Western media.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Wikipedia is israeli ran from the top down it's not just army of IDF soldiers editing it.
For example Wikipedia lists israeli lobby organisation ADL as a "reliable source"
In 2020, the ADL trained staff to edit Wikipedia pages, but after the project caused Wikipedia editors to criticize this as a conflict of interest, the ADL said it suspended the project in April 2021. The ADL is considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and the ADL said its staff complied with Wikipedia policies by disclosing their affiliations, but some Wikipedia editors objected that the project cited ADL sources disproportionately and did not reflect the volunteer spirit of the website, especially in heavily editing its own Wikipedia article.
Anyone that knows anything about ADL knows they are not reliable whatsoever. Wikipedia is a compromised Zionist dumpsterfire.
load more comments
(16 replies)
challenges to Wikipedia's ideals include "The Power of the Admins and Beurocrats" [sic], as well as the gender gap
I wonder what would happen if you graphed the share of biographies by birth year. It'd probably increase over time.
Is there a wiki on this accusation? I’d love to read that.
You know, not having read Wikipedia on Israel, and not taking a stand, those that think Wikipedia is biased could put up a simple wiki like page that lists the biases and rewrites the article in a way that they would consider unbiased. This would be in the spirit of Wikipedia. People could really decide for themselves.
🙃
this is hilarious
view more: next ›