For those unfamiliar with wikipedia processes, tldr talk pages are where discussion about articles happens. See Help:Talk pages for details.
Link goes to the talk page as of the currently-latest edit by Jimbo; here is the diff showing other edits to it since then.
see also:
- the current latest version of the article itself, as of today (last edit was four days ago): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&oldid=1319572343
- all edits by Jimbo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales
@cypherpunks Wikipedia is human-edited, and humans are flawed. However, the body of editors overall means it is self-correcting, in time. Jimbo may be a founder, but as an editor, his is one voice only. I think it is grossly unfair to condemn the entire thing over one person’s views. It is still the best source of info there is - overall. Some of the replies here are… disturbing, frankly.
I don’t understand how Wikipedia ended up becoming the literal Holy Scripture for western liberals.
This is a statement of pure religious faith.
@BrainInABox Is there a better one? Note that I said “overall” - meaning it isn’t perfect.
A better one what? The best source of information will depend on the topic. The idea that there is a one stop shop for truth is pure religious thinking
That’s what happens when you lack critical thinking.
I feel like there is a concerted effort to delegitimise Wikipedia recently. Long live Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has been a great way to launder right wing punditry into a form liberals will accept. People who would never otherwise give credence to people like Anne Applebaum or Thomas Friedman will treat their words as indisputable gospel if they’re copy pasted onto Wikipedia.
Knowledge, especially free and easily accessible knowledge is detrimental to elites. Under educated peoples are easy to coerce, control, manipulate, scapegoat, scare, etc. So the easier it is for people to educate themselves, or just be educated the worse it is. Capitalists by default want dumb workers who don’t know the meaning of value, it’s part of the reason theres been a massive anti-intellectualist push this last decade or so.
Yeah, I’m sure the elites are terrified at you having access to articles overwhelmingly written by western libertarians that happily and frequently source right wing pundits.
@BrainInABox Left AND right wing “pundits” are frequently cited. Sometimes there are editing “wars” where the two sides erase each other’s edits, but those are swiftly stopped and the issue is debated until a neutral consensus emerges.
The right detest wikipedia because their lies are removed, so they created grokipedia. Some of the left hate it for the same reason. Bizarre
@MrNobody
Right wing pundits are cited overwhelmingly more and given vastly more wait, often being treated as reliable and undisputed sources of truth. If you look at the largest sources of pro-Isreal propaganda over the last two years, there’s a good chance you’ll find them on Wikipedia’s trusted source list.
No, what happens is that one side locks down the discussion, reverts all changes, refuses to debate in good faith, calls in sympathetic admins to discipline their opponents, locks the page, and, from personal experience, begins making organised attempts to dox dissenters. This is why dogshit right wing pundits like Anne Applebaum, and literal CIA propaganda outlets like Radio Free Asia, remain up as “reliable” sources permanently.
The far right detest it, the neoliberal centre right adore it for enshrining western supremacist neo-liberalism as cultural gospel.
No, they hate it because the truth is removed and propaganda from entrenched neoliberal Zionist sources is treated as gospel.
@BrainInABox Sorry but that’s simply not true. Spent any time reading the talk pages to see how things work?
Also you didn’t answer my question on a better source of info.
[Added: never mind, I see you replied separately.]
Yes, I have spent time reading the talk pages, which is how I know it is true.
@BrainInABox Ok