this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2024
695 points (96.0% liked)

World News

39041 readers
2647 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On July 25, after a couple of months of debate, the Wikipedia entry "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" was changed to "Gaza genocide." This was done despite the fact that the International Court of Justice in the Hague has not made an official ruling on the matter, in the wake of South Africa's petition to the court alleging that Israel is committing or facilitating genocide in Gaza.

The Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal, which followed the Wikipedia discussion and vote, wrote that the editors who voted on this change claimed to be relying on an academic consensus based on statements of experts on genocide, human rights, human rights law and Holocaust historians.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 176 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Inb4 ‘WIKIPEDIA IS HAMAS!!’ allegations start being thrown

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 81 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

They'll start a new wiki like conservatives did. Call it Zionedia.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 52 points 3 months ago (1 children)

this is perfect though. Because it takes them away from slowing down progress on wikipedia and instead wastes their time on something with shit SEO.

[–] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 3 months ago

And the nazis will hopefully leave to go there as well

[–] locuester@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It already exists. Conservapedia

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Given enough time, we're gonna end up with two flavors of absolutely everything: normal, and racism incarnate

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

Wikipedia headquarters and the editor under school in Gaza?

[–] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 months ago

Haven't they been doing that since wiki said adl wasn't a good source?

[–] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 121 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Next up: a full congressional investigation into Wikipedia

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 45 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Conservapedia will finally reach the mainstream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forks_of_Wikipedia

A number of content forks of the open-source encyclopedia Wikipedia have been created:

  • Enciclopedia Libre, a 2002 fork of the Spanish Wikipedia created in opposition to perceived plans to add advertising to Wikipedia

  • Conservapedia, a 2006 fork of the English Wikipedia that aims to present a conservative-friendly worldview

  • Qiuwen Baike, a 2023 fork of the Chinese Wikipedia that aims to be compliant with Chinese government policies

  • Ruwiki (Wikipedia fork), a 2023 fork of the Russian Wikipedia that aims to be compliant with Russian government policies

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 96 points 3 months ago (4 children)

Conservapedia views Albert Einstein's theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[9] falsely claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer, praises Republicanpoliticians, supports celebrities and artistic works it believes represent moral standards in line with Christian family values, and espouses fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.

I couldn’t have made it up, WHAT THE FUCK lmao

[–] BreadstickNinja@lemmy.world 46 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That site is good for a laugh - a complete alternate universe devoid of science, evidence, or conscious thought.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 21 points 3 months ago

Soon to be condemned and superseded by Magapedia

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

 falsely claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer

Ironically, they were close to a point that might actually support their views. Birth control does increase the risk of breast and cervical cancer. It also lowers ovarian, endometrial, and colon cancer risk, but they’re not presenting complete information either way, so they could just ignore those parts.

[–] SGforce@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Macron married a tranny, Obama 'accompanied by muscular man in wig'. [146]

Fucking hell. This is the shit they take seriously!

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Conservapedia, a 2006 fork of the English Wikipedia that aims to present a conservative-friendly worldview

Further evidence that conservatives are snowflake little shitbirds that cant handle reality.

By the way this Haertz article is making false claims.

From the wikipedia talk page:

Just fyi that Haaretz just dropped some propaganda about this article claiming that since its name change it "was regularly getting 55,000 views per day," which is a demonstrably false claim.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide

[–] amanda@aggregatet.org 60 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wikipedia is now in the interesting position of having to write an encyclopaedia article about the discussions about their original page, in which I suspect they cannot cite themselves as a source.

[–] SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Unless their "talk" page is about academics resolving the name change based on acacemic concensus. It'd still be "us confirming us", but with citations and constructive resources.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago (5 children)

Its likely too early (For Wikipedia) just because the ICJ hasn't made a ruling. The genocide however is pretty plain to see and has been all year. Wikipedia has always done weird and often inconsistent things around the evidence allowed and sufficient to support statements in its articles so its not a new issue.

[–] alvvayson@lemmy.dbzer0.com 99 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

The ICJ ruling will take years though.

I think the most similar genocide to the Gaza genocide is the Bosnian genocide. The Srebrenica massacre took place in 1995 and the ICJ ruled in 2007.

So, the Gaza genocide might take until 2035 before it is all legally settled.

In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.

Since it looks like a genocide and the initial findings support the case that genocide is likely being committed, it seems to border on genocide denial to call it anything else.

Edit to add: I also don't see people complaining about Wikipedia calling the Rohingya genocide a genocide, even though it is legally in the same phase as the Gaza genocide.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 61 points 3 months ago (2 children)

In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits like a duck. Probably a duck.

Totally okay with calling it a genocide- and while they dither on what a slow-as-fuck court says, people are dying en masse.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 49 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Israel is starving the population, bombing them, shooting them, blockading them, it has destroyed all the medical facilities, educational institutions, all the infrastructure, it has cut off electricity and water and blocks or kills anyone trying to help the people to live. Israeli leaders openly express genocidal intent. There's no doubt this is genocide.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

shits like a duck.

In ponds?

Kidding aside, it's ABSOLUTELY a genocide. There's no doubt about it by any credible definition.

That Wikipedia has started calling it a genocide is a much needed step that removes one of the few remaining straws that Hasbarists and other genocide deniers have left to grasp at.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 43 points 3 months ago

They relied on academics and genocide experts. It's not weird or inconsistent with reality, regardless of propaganda.

[–] DarkCloud@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Yeah, they're inconsistent from article to article, because it depends on how many editors show up.

The more editors generally means a more consistent result/accurate result.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] febra@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Good. Because it is a genocide. Fuck Zionism

[–] rsuri@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You know what will fix the world? Debating semantics.

[–] discount_door_garlic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I don't think anybody is expecting Wikipedia admins and contributors to directly affect the outcome of conflict in the middle east, but deliberative discussions of how the events are documented can only be a good thing.

The site acts as much of our 'record' in the modern age - and is ideally less eager to throw out hyperbole or speculate too readily.

Arriving at that title and nomenclature needs to be seen as a reasoned approach, and not "crying wolf" so that the impartiality of the articles can be upheld - by being careful about their decision, it is a better outcome for everyone.

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

"This article is about the genocide accusations against Israel"

Doesn't mean the Wikipedia editors agree it is.

And I'm not saying it isn't.

But OP is not being honest.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›