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.

  • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        (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

        • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s correct, except it’s still considered a primary source, which can be cited to see what a group said if due.

          • spujb@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            wait can you clarify? this comment made me more confused /gen if you are willing

            • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

              • spujb@lemmy.cafe
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                okay gotcha thanks for the clarification! love me an internet discussion that ends with me being smarter

    • spujb@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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!