this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2025
236 points (100.0% liked)

World News

50703 readers
2161 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

“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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] andrewrgross@slrpnk.net 53 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (5 children)

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Wales is correct.

I understand this seems irrational, because of course Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And Wikipedia's job is to describe reality, right?

Wrong. Wikipedia's job is to describe historical and scientific consensus. It is fundamental to their mission that they do all they can to avoid arbitrating disputes. I know that's painful, but it's a matter of roles: academics and media organizations arbitrate, and Wikipedia's role is to catalog and communicate the consensus these organizations reach.

It's terrible that a minority of biased actors have managed to prevent media and academic institutions from reaching consensus when the subject is so straightforward and obvious. But until that is addressed, unfortunately Wikipedia is hampered from describing the consensus reality by the needs of their core mission. They are designed to be downstream of these organizations, and they have to be to remain effective to their core mission. It's like how the UN lets war criminals like Netanyahu visit and speak. As much as we'd all like them to kick him the hell out, doing so undermines the core purpose of the institution. It's uncomfortable, but it's the job description.

I think one solution is that their should be more than one crowd-sourced encyclopedia for the world. Wikipedia will always suffer from a Western, English-speaking bias.

[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago
  • People spend two years proving it is a " historical and scientific consensus. "
  • OP: it is not true!
[–] trougnouf@lemmy.world 20 points 2 days ago

I'm pretty sure there is an academic consensus.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

There is a lot wrong with this statement. The reason Israel can commit these war crimes with impunity is because of tolerance such as giving them a stage in the UN. It is not our job or Wikipedias to give a platform to enablers of massive human suffering. In fact, it is just the opposite.

You last point is also extremely questionable because there are numerous Wikipedia clones and competitors.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

is consensus even a thing? and considering the groups that make up the group saying it’s not a genocide, it would be like giving a murder equal say in his conviction at trial.

genocide has a definition, isreal far exceeded all criteria, israel has and is currently committing genocide.

unless there is a new definition that excludes israel but also doesn’t exclude the holocaust without naming the parties i don’t know of

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (3 children)

giving a murder equal say in his conviction at trial.

You guys don't allow the accused a defence?

[–] leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

When the accused has been repeatedly recorded murdering and raping people in plain view of the public while cackling maniacally and yelling “and I'll do it again!”..?

...sure, but we'll still call a spade a spade, and a genocide a genocide.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago

say in his conviction. the accused does not get to deliberate upon their own guilt

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Sure, then you lock them up for being war criminals.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

This the exact rationale used by climate deniers. Because you can state that there is "controversy" over an issue, you can dismiss it entirely.

The consensus is that Isreal is committing a genocide. Those who are disagree are a tiny minority, and should be considered nothing more than outliers. It doesn't matter that some of the disagreement comes from nations like the US. They're not more right just because they have a big economy and military.

As you said, "Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus", and that's exactly the responsibility that they're shirking here, choosing instead to gesture at a barely existent "controversy" that basically consists of "Isreal and their allies refute the claim." By the same token we shouldn't call Trump a felon because he still insists he's innocent.