Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

jewishjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 24 posts

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#11

Post by tivert »

secstate wrote: post #7

I dunno, the problem with processes is that they still get it wrong sometimes. But absent any sort of process all you get is trash. Wikipedia has managed to maintain a certain credibility in the world largely due to these democratic processes. Do the processes fail sometimes, sure. But I'll take this over 4chan any day. In the meantime, the only government-like structure left in Gaza is Hamas, and so if you say the G…

> In the meantime, the only government-like structure left in Gaza is Hamas, and so if you say the Gaza Health Ministry, anyone who knows what's going on, understands that Gaza is run by Hamas, which makes the reporting super dubious, AND clearly Hamas-run.

And that's exactly the reason why you need to label it: most people reading English language media like Wikipedia aren't going to make that kind of mental correction. That's only the kind of thing someone who is both already knowledgeable and reading in a guarded way would do.

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#12

Post by smegsicle »

pbarthelemy wrote: post #6
lysace wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is what good or bad?

Isn’t that obvious ? “The hamas-run health ministry is reporting 40,000 deaths” is a not-so-subtle way make the number questionable… But some will say mentioning hamas is fair, because it is factually true that it runs the government. No wording is neutral… all newspapers have style guides and guidelines and “elements of language”, the NYT ones for the US-funded destruction of Palestine leaked not so long ago, the on…

i think they just hate not seeing a magnet link for the nyt genocide enabling style guide

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#13

Post by rich_sasha »

halflife wrote: post #5
Sirizarry wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this bad or good in your opinion?

[flagged]

Should all articles about Israel's government call it "Netanyahu-led government"? Should every mention of Israeli settlements be qualified as "supported by Ben-Gvir"?

These are factually correct, but using these as qualifiers is clearly trying to make a point that belongs with journalism or politics, not something that's supposed to be factual and bland, like Wikipedia.

It doesn't sound like there is any ban at all in describing the "government" in Gaza and Hamas' involvement in it.

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#14

Post by defrost »

halflife wrote: post #5
Sirizarry wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this bad or good in your opinion?

[flagged]

Drop the obfuscation by all means.

Gaza Health is a Government body, the Government is Hamas, and no independant figures are available due to Netanyahu-led government locking out observers and delibrately targeting journalists within.

https://cpj.org/2024/10/journalist-casualties-in-the-israel-...

That seems fair.

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#15

Post by mostcallmeyt »

p3rls wrote: post #9

And this over an article that gets on average 200 pageviews a day... I run my own wiki project and this sorta political bike-shedding would get you labeled as a troublemaker and then thrown out, though I envy how wikipedia can survive with this kinda democratization where the inmates are running the asylum and it mostly performs flawlessly. I step away for a day and my inmates have regressed to speaking in wingdings…

A lot of critical coverages against Wikipedia have indeed appeared lately.

https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/1114599942/wikipedia-recessio...

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4703442

https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltra...

https://forward.com/opinion/550600/wikipedia-holocaust-disin...

https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wikipedia-road-highway-...

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202401124365

https://theconversation.com/wikipedias-volunteer-editors-are...

https://harpers.org/archive/2023/12/the-hofmann-wobble-wikip...

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...

Aaron Bandler of Jewish Journal also wrote many articles criticizing Wikipedia's antisemitic problems in the wake of October 7 attacks too. Not to mention "The Wikipedia Flood" blog which is posting more reports on Wikipedia.

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#16

Post by halflife »

rich_sasha wrote: post #13
halflife wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Should all articles about Israel's government call it "Netanyahu-led government"? Should every mention of Israeli settlements be qualified as "supported by Ben-Gvir"? These are factually correct, but using these as qualifiers is clearly trying to make a point that belongs with journalism or politics, not something that's supposed to be factual and bland, like Wikipedia. It doesn't sound like there is any ban at all i…

Well yeah, context matters. When Ben gvir or smotritch say one of their extremely stupid things, if you label it as “Israel says” it will be very disingenuous addressing their opinion as the official opinion of the state.

And in the case of Gaza health administration, calling it without mentioning Hamas does the exact opposite, removing important context. And is especially egregious since they never mention how many combatants killed, which makes readers assume that all deaths are civilians (as Gaza health administration is a civilian body).

Think of it like these 2 sentences- Hospital says 10 people killed.

Military hospital says 10 people killed.

Both will be correct, but omission of context makes you assume different outcomes

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#17

Post by halflife »

secstate wrote: post #7

I dunno, the problem with processes is that they still get it wrong sometimes. But absent any sort of process all you get is trash. Wikipedia has managed to maintain a certain credibility in the world largely due to these democratic processes. Do the processes fail sometimes, sure. But I'll take this over 4chan any day. In the meantime, the only government-like structure left in Gaza is Hamas, and so if you say the G…

I think the opposite, most people don’t know how hamas controls Gaza. Most don’t know the difference between Gaza and the West Bank.

It seems more like whitewashing the numbers for ill informed people

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#18

Post by rich_sasha »

halflife wrote: post #16
rich_sasha wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should all articles about Israel's government call it "Netanyahu-led government"? Should every mention of Israeli settlements be qualified as "supported by Ben-Gvir"? These are factually correct, but using these as qualifiers is clearly trying to make a point that belongs with journalism or politics, not something that's supposed to be factual and bland, like Wikipedia. It doesn't sound like there is any ban at all i…

Well yeah, context matters. When Ben gvir or smotritch say one of their extremely stupid things, if you label it as “Israel says” it will be very disingenuous addressing their opinion as the official opinion of the state. And in the case of Gaza health administration, calling it without mentioning Hamas does the exact opposite, removing important context. And is especially egregious since they never mention how many…

I think in an encyclopedia, the distinction you make should in fact be blurred. If there is an article about West Bank settlers' poor health, say, I don't want to mix in politics and Palestine-Israel conflict. It is irrelevant who in the government champions settlements, or that they are widely considered illegal. If numbers come from biased sources, you mention that directly.

Referring to Gaza institutions in general as Hamas-lead is adding implicit context - it says "according to Hamas and it's questionable". An encyclopedia should use the latter language. Also it's not like every single thing coming out of Gaza is untrue, just because Hamas is there.

Just like it shouldn't say flat earthers are crazy, people who speed are assholes, or which color is the best.

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#19

Post by red016 »

mostcallmeyt wrote: post #15
p3rls wrote: post #9

And this over an article that gets on average 200 pageviews a day... I run my own wiki project and this sorta political bike-shedding would get you labeled as a troublemaker and then thrown out, though I envy how wikipedia can survive with this kinda democratization where the inmates are running the asylum and it mostly performs flawlessly. I step away for a day and my inmates have regressed to speaking in wingdings…

A lot of critical coverages against Wikipedia have indeed appeared lately. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/1114599942/wikipedia-recessio... https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4703442 https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltra... https://forward.com/opinion/550600/wikipedia-holocaust-disin... https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wikipedia-road-highway-... https://www.iranintl.com/en/202401124365 ht…

[flagged]

Re: Wikipedia Put a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry "Hamas-Run"

#20

Post by tivert »

mostcallmeyt wrote: post #15
p3rls wrote: post #9

And this over an article that gets on average 200 pageviews a day... I run my own wiki project and this sorta political bike-shedding would get you labeled as a troublemaker and then thrown out, though I envy how wikipedia can survive with this kinda democratization where the inmates are running the asylum and it mostly performs flawlessly. I step away for a day and my inmates have regressed to speaking in wingdings…

A lot of critical coverages against Wikipedia have indeed appeared lately. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/29/1114599942/wikipedia-recessio... https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4703442 https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltra... https://forward.com/opinion/550600/wikipedia-holocaust-disin... https://slate.com/technology/2023/12/wikipedia-road-highway-... https://www.iranintl.com/en/202401124365 ht…

> A lot of critical coverages against Wikipedia have indeed appeared lately.

Which is good, because irrespective of any particular political controversy, Wikipedia has way more goodwill than it deserves. People should look at it way, way more critically, and stop with the hagiographic praise.

Post reply on HN