andrewrgross

Can you specify which alternatives you're talking about?

Also, I don't know what's specifically questionable about any of this. I haven't disputed or justified anything. I've just expressed a contrary opinion on tactics.

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.

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.

Deep take. Thanks for sharing.

I think the comment being posted accidentally in the wrong thread makes more sense.

What does this mean?

WOW. So that's where that video came from.

This is such a wild portrait into this attorney. They're a lawyer in the Israeli army, so I can't not assume that they're ultimately complicit in so many atrocities. And yet they also did something incredibly selfless and dangerous in the name of justice, which most humans will never ever do.

It must be enormously painful to sacrifice your career and entire family's social standing to bring a gross abuse to light, and then have much of your own society say, 'Now that we've seen this proof... We're going to stick with our position. You thought we'd change when you proved the claims of rape? No, we're just going to admit that we endorse rape.'

I do appreciate their bravery, because the release of this video, imo, has been one of the most impactful events in the narrative of Jewish Israeli self image. This event did force a reflection. It forced Israeli Jews to confront that their actions were inconsistent with their belief that they are a righteous people. Unfortunately, it seems that when faced with this incongruity, they resolved the conflict by accepting that they're the bad guys rather than insisting on stopping it. But I think accepting it did move the world another step towards accepting reality. And that's progress towards the day the occupation is ended by external pressure.

Oh that's right!

And now I'm remembering his scandalous tan suit!

Yeah.

Although I recently heard him on Marc Maron's podcast, and was rather disappointed.

He's still far, far more lucid than most other politicians, but he came off as wildly out of touch, which I didn't recall him being 10 years ago.

Oh well, that's the match of time for you.

Deal removes constraint on OpenAI's ability to raise capital

I think they mean "raze"...

I think the question is easier to answer if you remove the specific reason this coworker is annoying.

How do you deal with someone who bothers you with annoying, unwanted conversation about job satisfaction? The same way you deal with someone who bothers you with annoying, unwanted conversation about CrossFit or astrology. You answer every question with some version of 'Huh, I don't really know. I'm really busy, though, so I can't talk. Have a good day.'

The whole careerism element seems largely immaterial.