The crying “History” button at the top right sends its regards. Yes, the World Jewish Congress has published a report that demands Wikipedia add a feature to view the history of articles, see what actions were performed by whom, and “host forums and discussions within the Wikipedia community to address concerns about neutrality and gather feedback for policy improvements”. It also wants to force all admins and above to reveal their real names.
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.
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
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.
Yes I understand it now. Just didn’t read your comment correctly. Thank you.
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.
That was The Quibbler. Skeeter wrote for the normal paper. She was normal level bullshit. Quibbler was ‘frogs on the moon’ level bullshit.
The Onion writes dumb soot on purpose to amuse people while including a disclaimer of “none of this is real”.
Real paper, used to have a print edition. Absurdist satire.
deleted by creator
No, it just seems too ridiculous to be true. Read this community’s sidebar.
It doesn’t seem like a satire site.
Edit: Oh I see the emphasis on seems now.
No it just could have passed for satire last week.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
There’s also an existing template to mark the talk pages of editors suspected of having a conflict of interest based on their edit history.
A 'pedia written by invite only was Nupedia, which has been dead for a very long time. So basically you meant that the article suggests to add a forked history for a more neutral version? Not sure if that makes it dumber or smarter.
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.
!remindme 2 days
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.
Bias is being more likely to come to a particular conclusion.
This right here ^^^
I think sociology should be taught in highschools tbh. Of all the times to teach people about sociology, teen years seem like a great opportunity to be discussing these things.
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?
Fuck Israel.
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.
Only one thing is going to do that. Make the desert glass.
Glass with our weapons or salt, god style?
Well, I’m pretty sure we could figure out how to make really big bombs again. I’m less sure we could manage the salt thing.
Or maybe it was glass but they thought it was salt?
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
That’s correct, except it’s still considered a primary source, which can be cited to see what a group said if due.
wait can you clarify? this comment made me more confused /gen if you are willing
Primary sources and research cannot be cited to support objective facts. However, they can be used to cite criticism from a group. The only difference with your original reply is that being cited as criticism instead of fact does not magically make the source secondary.
okay gotcha thanks for the clarification! love me an internet discussion that ends with me being smarter
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)
“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”
I was looking into this thread to see if someone had reposted the video, thanks :)
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…?
wtf is wrong with the world rn…?
Conservatives.
Fascists.
these days, unfortunately… “They are the same picture”
This’ll have to do as I don’t know how to post images on this client.
🌎👨🚀🔫👩🚀Conservatism has always been a thin veil to disguise greed. It’s only about “maintaining the status quo” if the status quo gets you a lot of money already, otherwise it’s about reducing privileges for your own benefit and to everyone else’s detriment. All the while screaming “think of the children”, as some sort of justification.
Fully agreed, sadly…
I mean it’s easy to point a finger at an out-group and ‘orher’ the problem away to something amorphous like fascism or conservatism or theocracy… But it doesn’t help right what’s wrong.
I think it boils more purely down to education. People haven’t been getting a good public education in this country aside from New England, New York, and the West Coast. Some watery areas of the Canadian border, and Colorado too. But beyond that? We’ve kinda incubated a big dumb angry cohort that eats this shit up.
The point is the Fascists taking advantage of people’s ignorance and at times stupidy, even taking advantage of Mass Media and (nowdays) information speadring media on the Internet to spread lies and distortions of truth and even weakening education when the have power in order to keep people ignorant and easy to manipulate.
Sure, common people are to blame, partly, and IMHO the sociopaths taking advantage of them are the ones with most of the blame.
Or putting things differently: if I was to constantly offer cake to a morbidly overwheight person who I knew has trouble controlling themselves when it comes to sweet things, they would be to blame for eating the cake but, IMHO, I would be a lot more to blame for knowingly and repeatebly creating that situation were they would end up eating cake.
So, yeah, it’s still down to Fascists, the real Fascists, not the numpties convinced by their lies.
Your point about lack of education is very much valid. But in the context of this article, these are not uneducated people.
The World Jewish Congress might be headquartered in New York, but I wouldn’t call it an American org. It was founded in Geneva, is headed by a Rothschild (French banker) and serves to forward the causes of Israel as a priority.
Capitalism
IMO, there can be capitalism without fascism; fascism can subvert every society, no matter what it’s based on.
I wasn’t disagreeing just adding to the chain of things wrong with the world :)
Capitalism loves fascism because it helps inequality. Its hard to exploit a society where everyone is equal, helpful and tolerant.
PDF means it’s legit yall
Means it’s probably infected with who knows what kind of zero days.
Wow, accusing the IDF of doing something bad that they do every tuesday. Basically Reinhard heidrich on (slightly less) cocaine.
It’s actually a PDF of a Powerpoint.
assuming you’re serious: it’s not
The zionist scum hate Wikipedia because its hard to call it antisemitic
Removed by mod
OK, maybe leave out the “drinking blood” thing. That’s way too close to blood libel for my comfort. Leave the criticisms in reality. There’s no need to say things like this when they’re literally committing a genocide.
I hate that there is a loud group of people reverting to actual antisemitism in their criticism of Israel’s genocide.
I want to be arguing that a cease fire is necessary to save Palestinians. I don’t want to be arguing about a Jewish deep state that invented the Holocaust.
Sorry I just find it really frustrating because that’s valid, and then they just do the fucking thing and claim to represent all Jewish people everywhere despite being led by a literal Hitler apologist, and I’m finding it really hard to care about which specific details they did or didn’t do, like asking if the bathrooms at Auschwitz were clean.
Its not like they’re culturally Jewish anyway; their food and stuff is all things they pillaged from the locals. I’m convinced their holy book is some old czarist propaganda.
Maybe they shouldn’t larp a protocols of the elders of Zion fan group and draw fan art of it on all our maps? Because, like, I for one would really appreciate the fuck out of them stopping that shit.
Also, want to see how long it takes me to find a post by a kapostani shutzstaffel killbot actually doing that? I don’t have social media accounts and am terminally sleep deprived, so my bet is above an hour.
Them (their government, not the people or jews in general) doing something bad does not make it acceptable to be racist. I don’t care how bad some social media post is. If your argument isn’t based in reality or it brings racism into it, it only works to decrease the legitimacy of actual criticism. Keep it to yourself if that’s how you feel. It doesn’t help anything.
This isn’t racist, this isn’t about fucking Jewish people, except ‘hey fucking stop speaking for a bunch of people you have basically no connection to, many of whom fucking hate you’.
This is about a bunch of literal Hitler apologists larping a piece of shitty antisemitic czarist propaganda with real genocide, and I don’t care if it would be racist to say it about Jewish people, which I’m not convinced these assholes even are. Every sliver of effort spent being precise about ‘well we don’t know for sure’ is like immediately contradicted by one if these vicious shitty little monsters making a shitty rap narrating the war crimes as they do them live on video.
And I think invoking racism here is potentially a bad faith tactic. I’m genuinely worried about the racism these monsters are normalizing for people who believe their shit about not only being Jewish, but speaking for all Jews globally, which I’m pretty sure isnt even a real thing except in aforementioned shitty antisemitic propaganda they’re literally treating like a checklist.
Every sliver of effort spent being precise about ‘well we don’t know for sure’ is like immediately contradicted by one if these vicious shitty little monsters making a shitty rap narrating the war crimes as they do them live on video.
You said they’re drinking blood! They aren’t fucking drinking blood. It’s not about being precise, it’s about you spreading racist messages. Blood libel is a real thing spread about Jewish people, and it’s fucking racist.
Also, saying you don’t think they’re real jews is just a no true scotsman fallacy. They are jews, though they don’t represent all jews. Every sufficiently large group has evil people in it.
The thing is, the reason it would be racist to say that about a human of Jewish ancestry/heritage/religion does not apply to these rabid fucking fascist ghouls, because it comes from a book they’re larping. Like, on purpose, I’m pretty sure.
I just said it because it was a comically awful flourish, which theybe probably dobe because theyve done in just the past week literally every atrocious thing you can think of and a lot you hopefully cant, but you pointing out that its a shitty negative stereotype makes me think that’s why they would do it in a more official capacity. Like how they poisoned all the water they couldn’t steal. When I say “LARPing ‘protocols of the elders of Zion’” I’m not being hyperbolic; it genuinely looks like they’re doing that, but with real victims.
And I can’t be precious and sensitive to irredeemable monsters that genuinely seem like they’re trying to do a 100% speedrun of every possible atrocity. They probably are doing it, because they’re doing every bad thing they can think of, according to their press releases, on purpose with full knowledge.
And the ‘not Jews’ thing isn’t based on them being awful, but about an argument they once made about why it was okay to do some awful shit to other Jewish groups. Also the fact that they’re mostly literal Hitler apologists who(se grandparents) tried to literally participate in the holocaust. Also the fact that all the, for example, foods they say are theirs, are things they stole from Palestinians, not things they got from their ancestors.
Them claiming to speak for all Jews is just super fucking racist and awful and probably going to get real probably-innocent people, some of whom I’m kind of attached to, killed by well intentioned idiots. Hopefully not too many. Unrelated, not no-true-scotsmaning. Fuck em; fascists don’t get to have identities anyway.
They can always fork it and see how it goes.
I’m sure Wikipedia are very concerned about this official PDF and they’re going to implement the recommended changes immediately.
Removed by mod
The old trick of calling any criticism of Israel anti-Semitic doesn’t work anymore. They might need to actually change policy this time.
