“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
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    https://blog.reputationx.com/wikipedia-alternatives

    Edit: I will give you some feedback as to what I thought was ill conceived in your statement.

    First, I think beginning with “wrong” and making a subjective statement that is not what Wikipedia or Wikimedia actually have as their mission started you off on the wrong foot.

    Second, a minority of actors has not prevented consensus.

    Third, the UN does not have to allow war criminals a platform.

  • source
  • parent