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.
The zionist scum hate Wikipedia because its hard to call it antisemitic
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
!remindme 2 days
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.
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.
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.
“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 :)
Fuck Israel.
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!
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!
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?
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?
We realized this a long time ago and simply made our own national analogue of Wikipedia.
You’re talking about Metapedia, right?
What is metapedia?
It’s a wiki made by deniers of a different genocide.
They can always fork it and see how it goes.
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.
