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

Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

thenational.scot

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 124 posts

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#61

Post by legitster »

skilled wrote: post #3

This was not linked in the article, so here is what Jimmy wrote in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_f...

> As many of you will know, I have been leading an NPOV working group and studying the issue of neutrality in Wikipedia across many articles and topic areas including “Zionism”. While this article is a particularly egregious example, there is much more work to do. It should go without saying that I am writing this in my personal capacity, and I am not speaking on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation or anyone else!

I've definitely noticed this a lot more lately on Wikipedia where an article will be really quick to label something as "pseudohistory" or "pseudoscience" or likewise in the summary. Sometimes it makes sense, but there are quite a few articles where the difference between "crackpot" theories and acceptable "fringe" areas of study are fairly subjective. Or that someone feels the need to stand up a separate page about "denialism" of a topic where it was largely unnecessary.

And even for actual pseudoscience topics like Flat Earth Theory - the page has so much good information on it. But the summary on the page is terrible and does not even reflect a good summary of the page's own content! Mostly because people feel an unnecessary need to shoehorn in assessments of the myth status of the theory.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#62

Post by dgrin91 »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #8

[flagged]

Per Wiki's own article, there are many countries (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide#/media/File:Inte...) that disagree with the genocide distinction. Those countries are not just the US - they are large and small nations from all parts of the world. Is that not the definition of highly contested?

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#63

Post by chihuahua »

jacquesm wrote: post #55
mrguyorama wrote: post #34

Jimmy Wales does what? From the very article itself: > Others said that Wales did not have control over Wikipedia, and was only an editor like anyone else, but had been “trying to pull an authority-based argument while promoting a book”. >“I'm not sure Jimbo's plea needs to be entertained much beyond demonstrating that current consensus is something different than what he thinks it should be,” one user said. Wikipedi…

When I look through those Wikipedia talk pages what always strikes me is that it is as if a whole raft of not-so-smart people have finally found something they can be experts on. These then use their own developed lingo and the fact that they have more time and expertise about WP than their usually smarter and better informed subject expert counter party to bludgeon them with all kinds of mumbo-jimbo to the point of…

I think it has been discussed a few times that Wikipedia is a place where various kinds of zealots, fanatics, and obsessives can go and play a variant of the game of Diplomacy. This tends to drive away normal people who have subject matter knowledge, but are not interested in investing their time in long political campaigns over Wikipedia rules and power struggles.

It seems this happens in many places where the opportunity presents itself. StackOverflow seems to suffer from a similar (not identical) issue.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#64

Post by thrance »

This is how the "Wikipedia Row" "Erupted" at Jimmy Wales:

> It is a bad faith read of the community when suggesting that among the most read and debated articles on the community is poorly done. there has been dozens of hours of discussion and rfcs galore to reach this version of the article and im certain there will be more. Consensus is always evolving but this article represents the latest consensus.

Seems very reasonable to me.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#65

Post by legitster »

bsimpson wrote: post #33

[flagged]

The money is going into an endowment, not funding random political activities. The point of an endowment is to eventually have enough money to live off of the interest forever (which is tough if the organization like Wikimedia keeps growing).

They actually make more money every year from the interest on their endowment than they do from donations at this point.

(All the more argument that they should be knocking off the massive nags though)

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#67

Post by mcphage »

jervant wrote: post #5

From the headline, one might assume he directly edited or locked the page when he just commented on the article's discussion page that it should have a more neutral tone.

> he just commented on the article's discussion page that it should have a more neutral tone

He also said it in a '"high profile media interview about the article'.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#68

Post by ASalazarMX »

embedding-shape wrote: post #26
nsp wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a congressional inquiry, the claim is that the editors are biased against Israel. https://www.commondreams.org/news/house-gop-investigates-wik...

> the editors are biased against Israel But so what? Is that unlawful in the US somehow today? That sounds absolutely bananas to be honest, aren't people supposed to have "true" freedom of speech, including being allowed to be biased against or for Israel?

Yes, but please understand that the government of USA has a bias in favor of Israel that it needs to uphold. Why do you hate America and Freedom(TM)?

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#69

Post by Gigachad »

tetrisgm wrote: post #56

This is very likely character assassination. Wikipedia has been targeted lately as part of a marketing effort for grokipedia. I recommend taking this as a grain of salt.

Also feel like Wikipedia was never the go to platform for unfolding situations.

Re: Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

#70

Post by viccis »

trhway wrote: post #43
viccis wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hamas carried out executions of a few dozen ranking members of opposition groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government. This is not a "genocide"

We saw what HAMAS does - all the video from Oct 7 - and we have to believe that same HAMAS abuot some mythical "groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government"

Hamas is not an acronym, it's "Hamas" not "HAMAS"

>We saw what HAMAS [sic] does - all the video from Oct 7

Not relevant to this topic, nor is it true (there's no video from Oct 7 that has any bearing on this)

>and we have to believe that same HAMAS [sic] abuot some mythical "groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government"

You actually don't. Yasser Abu Shabab is an example of one of them who has his own Wikipedia page, along with one for his gang (Popular Forces). The latter has 5 citations for the fact that his group is both Israeli backed and linked to ISIS. For example, see [1].

These Israeli backed groups have been responsible for murders of civilians such as Saleh al-Jafarawi, as well as attacks on Hamas soldiers, which is why Hamas executed them for collaboration.

I would recommend you do a bit more research, as it's not a good sign if your propaganda is easily shown to be false with CNN links.

1: https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/middleeast/israel-arming-hama...

Post reply on HN