Live data from Hacker News

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

thenational.scot

91–100 of 124 posts

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

#91
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.

That understates the situation significantly. Wales posted a long comment under the headline,

Statement from Jimbo Wales: This message is from me, Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia

That's not just another comment; it's an official statement from the most powerful person on Wikipedia.

Wales goes on to say, "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."

In other words, an official body is watching and studying what you are doing, and policy actions may follow.

Finally, Wales does not accept any possibility that other points of view besides his own may be valid - not addressing many prior discussions. His belief is an assumed premise, and he demands ('asks') people to take actions on the basis of his beliefs. If you read the discussion, he continues that position.

That doesn't make Wales wrong or right, but he didn't 'just comment ... that it should have a more neutral tone.'.

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

#92
post #88
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In the case of the Holodomor, there's no such articulated plans to eradicate a people You're incorrect. The Holodomor was an implementation of the clearly set policy to subdue peasantry and "clean up" rich peasants (the rich peasant were basically any peasant who wasn't completely destitute) as peasants weren't carriers of proper communist ideology (only dirt poor village laborers who didn't have their own land/hors…

Can you provide a concrete piece of evidence that the USSR government set out to accomplish this? For example, I can easily pull up correspondence that shows the intent of top brass in the regimes responsible for other 20th century genocides. For example, you can easily find evidence that Lenin and others sought to discipline kulaks, but nowhere are the Holodomor's famines mentioned there.

>easily find evidence that Lenin and others sought to discipline kulaks, but nowhere are the Holodomor's famines mentioned there.

that is what i was talking about - disciplining kulaks, successful peasants, which basically meant destroying significant part of the peasant population there. And if you look at the map i linked - those regions had mostly Ukrainian speaking peasant population.

You probably have different than bolshevik's notion what "disciplining" is. Bolsheviks were outright genociding whole social stratas (and kulaks were one of such a strata) because bolsheviks saw no place for those people in the supposedly beautiful future the bolsheviks were supposedly building. And just for an example - you probably not aware how bolsheviks used chemical weapons against peasant revolt in Tambov region.

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

#94

Surprisingly I don’t see Wales commenting on the Armenian Genocide talk page. I don’t see the difference between the two. What am I missing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

There are vast differences

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

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I know this issue is top-of-mind in the public discourse now, but the issue of Israel/Palestine has been ongoing for decades at this point.

The broader conflict yes but not the current programme.

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

#96
post #66

Seems pretty important to require a neutral tone regardless of how egregious the acts are described in the entry. This is what makes Wikipedia good.

[flagged]

Is it true that "trust a majority" is a "good"? Or just the opinion of the majority?

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

#97
post #96
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Is it true that "trust a majority" is a "good"? Or just the opinion of the majority?

If it's a majority of topic experts, I think it is. I work with many (might even include myself) and we disagree constantly. If we do agree on something, I'm fairly confident it's accurate and trustworthy.

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

#98
post #96
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Is it true that "trust a majority" is a "good"? Or just the opinion of the majority?

You can read their arguments on the discussion page; don't act like this is just an appeal to authority.

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

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but in this case what's a high quality source for "Israel isn't actually commiting genocide"? Israeli government representatives? Why are they high quality, because they went to prestigious universities and have real power? Not trolling, serious question.

There are a number of them mentioned on Wikipedia itself [1]. I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a source given all the anti-Israel bias lately, but that particular section seems okay-ish for now and I'm not aware of a better list. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_t...

[deleted]

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

#100
post #64

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 re…

Ultimately it's a numbers game, and editors with an anti-Israeli agenda have the numbers. Jimbo's post reads as if he's encouraging chances so that the article adheres to NPOV, but I think he understands that's rather futile, and is really just trying to draw attention so that more readers will be aware of Wikipedia's biases.

While obviously you're right that in practice "it's a numbers game", it shouldn't be. That's the point.
Post reply on HN