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
148 points (94.6% liked)
Not The Onion
12605 readers
445 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.”
Comments 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
Israel has a team of people influencing the image of their state positively throughout Wikipedia. Get fucked.
Well it's not working
It's working, but maybe they want to make it work even more
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!
"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"
How about you go fuck yourself instead?
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
right, i kind of used the word “referenced” there intentionally, since the actual article would likely cite an actual academic publication which speaks on the matter
thanks for the info!
(I meant to quote from the article but forgot to style it as a blockquote)
(speaking of which, Wikipedia's editors hate decoration, which they consider to be juvenile and include that little pastel vertical line on the left of blockquotes, in favor of the browser default of indenting the quote on both sides)
Fuck Israel.
Gee, I wonder what some murders want with the real names of people who they don't like.
Anyone curious why privacy is so important even if you've done nothing wrong?
I am Spartacus
They can always fork it and see how it goes.
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.
The Israelis failed to learn the lessons from WW II, because their playbook is from the NKVD and SS. Make peace morons.
Please don't do this. There is absolutely nothing strange or startling about a people who have been subjected to genocide going on to commit it (see also: Serbia).
This sort of finger-wagging is crude and insulting, and the only outcome is far-right Zionists trying to pin the Holocaust on Palestinians and claiming that Palestinian animosity towards Israel is because of a European-style irrational hatred of Jews, not its colonial and genocidal actions.
This is not a morality play.
They did learn… there using it in smaller form.
Can you not literally see the edit history of Wikipedia articles?
Yes, that's why this is in c/nottheonion
Wait so it's fake?
No, it means that the subject matter is ridiculous enough to be satirical, but unfortunately it isn’t.
I have been curious about this since the subreddit on reddit, is The Onion the magazine from Harry Potter universe that wrote ridiculous things or is it a real magazine? I always think of someone from HP deliberately writing dumb articles (perhaps Rita Skeeter named someone?) So i'm not sure.
The Onion is a real paper (or at least while it was in print, it’s all digital now) and has existed since the late ‘80s, well before Harry Potter came along.
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.
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?
Rather than talk about what Wikipedia should or shouldn't do to improve, people should take the initiative of helping to improve it themselves. Wikipedia is ultimately a collective of its volunteer editors, so the best way of enacting change on the platform is getting more people to make informed, unbiased improvements to articles.
Wikipedia do lock articles so that only editors with good standing can change them. But obviously that's not necessary for every article because 99% of articles are not political and are in fact about a type of moss that grows in the Canary Islands.
That's what the world is about, so 99% of articles being about that moss makes sense
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.
The old trick of calling any criticism of Israel anti-Semitic doesn't work anymore. They might need to actually change policy this time.
🙃
The zionist scum hate Wikipedia because its hard to call it antisemitic
I'm sure Wikipedia are very concerned about this official PDF and they're going to implement the recommended changes immediately.
No red flags here at all.
All good. Make sure those dissenters get revealed.
I just -- wtf is wrong with the world rn...?
this is hilarious
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.