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
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