19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles
Aatube@kbin.social to 
signpost.news
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
Former Israel PM Naftali Bennett at a wikipedia editing instruction event
"Balanced and Zionist in nature."
He said the quiet part out loud.
"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 :)
this PDF will probably be referenced in the “genocide denial” article in the not-too-distant future
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)
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...?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Damn. Cut right to the core, without any bluster or hyperbole - because it wasn’t needed.
They did learn… there using it in smaller form.
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
Not even veiling the threat...
I've just realized a mistake by the signpost headline: It only wants admins and above to do that (which is better I suppose?). I've amended the post body.
I mean Mossad will show up and do what they are very good at doing, so they only need one name.
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"
Anyone that knows anything about ADL knows they are not reliable whatsoever. Wikipedia is a compromised Zionist dumpsterfire.
Of course. Still, even if someone knows nothing about ADL, by making a simple search with the keywords "ADL zionism" they will have the relevant page that confirms they are zionists. I won't add this link, but I will add the link of:
Jewish Voice for Peace - Our approach to zionism
Searching about it, the ADL seems to try and separate support of the Israeli government from Zionism, and defines Zionism as the belief that Jews should have a sovereign state to live together. If one thinks that Israel shouldn't be sovereign at all and being abolished tomorrow would be very good, I'd also agree that that is extremist.
From Anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist Campaigns - ADL
The History of "Socialist" Zionism | Leftist Zionists did the Nakba & founded Israel
The Neglected History of the State of Israel - The Revisionist faction of Zionism that ended up triumphing adhered to literal fascist doctrines and traditions.
Thanks.
Please elaborate why they are not reliable for things other than Israel/Palestine topics, for which WP:RSP already has a small warning about that area. Just having bias and doing advocacy doesn't necessarily mean that their reporting is unreliable, though as with other biased sources more objective sources are preferred.
Even if ADL were unreliable, that's just one source, and I don't see how that exemplifies that "Wikipedia is a compromised Zionist dumpsterfire". Organizations and individuals are allowed to submit requests to edit pages for which they have a conflict of interest, and I don't see why Wikipedia being open to review them means it's now Israeli-ran from the top-down.
For anything non-controlversial and science related Wikipedia is fine. But when it comes to geopolitics Wikipedia is extremely Western biased. And in the case of middle eastern topic severely compromised. It's an important place to play with words and selectively put disinformation so people who think they get educated leave brainwashed.
There's far far more, I wrote a lengthy comment once about Wikipedia claiming israel's 1967 invasion war a "pre-emptive attack" which is a very dubious claim at best and debunked by many israeli leaders already. Wikipedia might be open for review but with the amount of Zionists involved in editing Palestine related articles there's no way real change gets through. Ironically Wikipedia instead just has an entirely different page explaining why it's actually not a pre-emptive attack but nobody is going to look through that. They will see the summary of the first article and the damage will be done.
The ADL is one of the biggest Zionist slander lobbies that call any criticism of israel "anti-Semitic". Wikipedia still listing the ADL as a "reliable source" cannot mean anything else than israel having huge influence on Wikipedia's politcy.
Any organisation that endorses the ADL or uses them as a "news source" is severely compromised it's as simple as that. It's like people quoting Russian state propaganda as evidence. By now everyone knows the ADL is an israeli slander lobby
Not exactly sure what you're arguing about the six-day war, but if you mean that it should be an unjustified invasion instead of "pre-emptive"... My first impression of "pre-emptive" is unjustified and at best marginally better than an invasion, and the UN seems to agree in Article 2 (4) of the UN charter. That "entirely different page" is also summarized in the six-day war–page's "Controversies" section, but I assume you're talking about the lede. "On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort.[28] Egyptian forces were caught by surprise, and nearly all of Egypt's military aerial assets were destroyed, giving Israel air supremacy" does not give me an impression that Egypt planned to invade.
Even if that were true, "there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed." That converts it into an opinion. Nowhere have you demonstrated that the ADL has a track record of falsifying facts, not opinions such as labeling people.
Pre-emptive means that an imminent threat is coming and they struck it first. Aka that "israel had the right to defend itself" before even being attacked. Which was a straight up lie.
If you're not informed about the ADL here's a decent article on it. The more you read up on the ADL the worse it gets.
Again, Wikipedia's reliable source listings are only concerned about the quality of the source's factual reporting. Having a horrible bias in judgement does not preclude factual reporting.
And many people think that's wrong. Just saying that that's the reason Israel and most publications claim Israel did that is not claiming that it was justified.
Calling anti Palestine protests pro Hamas or anti Semitism is not factual.
Having a "antisemitic incident counter" which increases every time someone says "free Palestine" is not factual.
Again, labels, especially of antisemitism, are considered opinions and attributed.
The ADL is used as a source for "anti Semitism statistics" which are per definition rigged. An organisation that claims to be anti racism and prejudice which raison d'etre is to smear anyone including Jews which are against israel is not just "opinions". The ADL is a piece of filth that enables Genocide by using anti-Semitism as a shield for israel.
The ADL defies its entire point of existence. Classifying pro palestine protests as anti Semitic and hate speech is per definition a lie.
The ADL is used as a source for hate groups' backgrounds and way more than labeling their antisemitism, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creativity\_(religion).
Which they also have no authority for becuase one of their other main goals is spread anti-Arab propganda.
And one of their source articles where it becomes rather apparent that the ADL heavily pushes for islamophobic legislation
I won't reply further if you can't separate bias from objective facts, especially those that are tangential to the bias, such as the history and key persons of a white supremacist group that doesn't involve Arabs.
I am Spartacus
Soon to appear:
"...by the TOTALLY NOT GENOCIDAL NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT BRO I PROMIIIIISE government of Israel has...."
[Edited By: Gigi Getngahu]
We realized this a long time ago and simply made our own national analogue of Wikipedia.
Is it Hamichlol?
Because if it is that's hilarious. It's like an Israeli version of Conservapedia.
You're talking about Metapedia, right?
What is metapedia?
It's a wiki made by deniers of a different genocide.