Regardless of your standing with regards to the Israel-Palestine war, this is an unexpected development as now legacy networks are finally paying serious attention to criticisms of Wikipedia after years of neglect.
Any observers who’ve been following Wikipedia-related rabbit holes long enough would know that criticism of Wikipedia is for a long time dominated by the political fringes (i.e. far-right) and many Wikipedia critics normally gets ridiculed out of the room as they’re been characterized as “fascists” and “anti-knowledge”. Now it’s like a dream come true for those critics as they seemingly get vindicated on television networks.
The only anti-Jewish bias I’ve noticed on Wikipedia is that if someone is a Jew, it’ll always be mentioned in the first paragraph of their “Early Life” section.
This is also partially true for any non-Christian, it seems that Christianity is assumed as a default, but that isn’t applied universally (e.g. this applies to articles about Muslim or Hindi people often, but not always).
Conflating anti-Zionist (or, more often, factual reporting on Israel) material with antisemitic material is a very dangerous mistake not only for the people horribly affected by the Zionist ideology, but Jews as a whole too.
Citing the ADL immediately loses you all credibility.
MSNBC and CNN literal garbage heaps that have slowly eroded what news is so that as they approach Fox levels of depraved billionaire bootlicking no one will notice.
CNN…
Owned by conservative billionaires who said their goal is to emulate Faux News…
Gee, why would conservative billionaires be against free and available information to the masses?
Perfect sometimes is the enemy of good. At least the issues on Wikipedia are finally being taken seriously after years of neglect.
Gee, why would conservative billionaires be against free and available information to the masses?
This is a false dichotomy pigeonholing fallacy. Many critics do support Wikipedia as a concept, however they are pissed off by how toxic editors have captured the levers of power on Wikipedia and corrupted it. It’s probably better for the knowledge market to consist of multiple platform instead of a single, suffocating monopoly, and there are already real efforts in addressing it, such as ibis.wiki.
Cory Doctorow’s thesis on enshittification fits right in this case.
You understand that your links are saying Wikipedia is going to easy on Israel for their genocide against the native inhabitants of that land…
Right?
Like, that is what you’re presenting as a long overdue thing…
Has that been the reason you hate Wikipedia this whole time, they’re too honest about genocide?
Has that been the reason you hate Wikipedia this whole time, they’re too honest about genocide?
With all due respect, the pro-Palestinian side has been griping about Wikipedia as well. You’re clearly trying to pigeonhole people so that you can dismiss all the concerns that the so-called “magical platform” has a ton of issues after all.
You’re clearly trying to pigeonhole people
You made a whole post celebrating media corporations owned by conservative billionaires supporting a genocide was not only a good, but novel thing…
What are people supposed to think?
I’m sorry, but this is an extremely naive take with absolutely no nuance whatsoever.
You said no nuance? Now this is indeed no nuance as the so-called magical platform has hidden ableist biases against topics related to neurodivergent people as well.
