Jimmy Wales says the page needs “immediate correction.”

“At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales said. He added that a “neutral approach would begin with a formulation such as: ‘Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.’” Currently, the article bases its position that a genocide exists on conclusions from United Nations investigations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and “multiple human rights groups,” among others.

  • Doorbook@lemmy.worldEnglish
    121·
    3 days ago
    • People spend two years proving it is a " historical and scientific consensus. "
    • OP: it is not true!
    • Andy@slrpnk.netEnglish
      11·
      18 hours ago

      I want to be clear.

      I know it’s a genocide, and I agree that this is the consensus of academic scholars. The only real dispute is coming from donors who can manipulate the editorial process.

      This is the crux of the dispute within Wikipedia: when the system works correctly, scholars write; their institutions publish; Wikipedia summarizes. But if bad actors interrupt the execution of step 2, should Wikipedia break protocol further to circumvent the attack? Or effectively allow it to be successful to maintain process?

      I think the argument for the former is compelling, but I think Wales recognizes the downstream consequences, and I think I very reluctantly agree.

      The bad actors do need to be countered. I just don’t think Wikipedia is an effective tool to do so.