And does it have anything to do with the unusual decision to let a zero-edit user open an arbitration request?

The crying “History” button at the top right sends its regards. Yes, the World Jewish Congress has published a report that demands Wikipedia add a feature to view the history of articles, see what actions were performed by whom, and “host forums and discussions within the Wikipedia community to address concerns about neutrality and gather feedback for policy improvements”. It also wants to force all admins and above to reveal their real names.

  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    8 months ago

    For anything non-controlversial and science related Wikipedia is fine. But when it comes to geopolitics Wikipedia is extremely Western biased. And in the case of middle eastern topic severely compromised. It’s an important place to play with words and selectively put disinformation so people who think they get educated leave brainwashed.

    There’s far far more, I wrote a lengthy comment once about Wikipedia claiming israel’s 1967 invasion war a “pre-emptive attack” which is a very dubious claim at best and debunked by many israeli leaders already. Wikipedia might be open for review but with the amount of Zionists involved in editing Palestine related articles there’s no way real change gets through. Ironically Wikipedia instead just has an entirely different page explaining why it’s actually not a pre-emptive attack but nobody is going to look through that. They will see the summary of the first article and the damage will be done.

    The ADL is one of the biggest Zionist slander lobbies that call any criticism of israel “anti-Semitic”. Wikipedia still listing the ADL as a “reliable source” cannot mean anything else than israel having huge influence on Wikipedia’s politcy.

    Any organisation that endorses the ADL or uses them as a “news source” is severely compromised it’s as simple as that. It’s like people quoting Russian state propaganda as evidence. By now everyone knows the ADL is an israeli slander lobby

    • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
      0·
      8 months ago

      Not exactly sure what you’re arguing about the six-day war, but if you mean that it should be an unjustified invasion instead of “pre-emptive”… My first impression of “pre-emptive” is unjustified and at best marginally better than an invasion, and the UN seems to agree in Article 2 (4) of the UN charter. That “entirely different page” is also summarized in the six-day war–page’s “Controversies” section, but I assume you’re talking about the lede. “On 5 June 1967, as the UNEF was in the process of leaving the zone, Israel launched a series of preemptive airstrikes against Egyptian airfields and other facilities, launching its war effort.[28] Egyptian forces were caught by surprise, and nearly all of Egypt’s military aerial assets were destroyed, giving Israel air supremacy” does not give me an impression that Egypt planned to invade.

      The ADL is one of the biggest Zionist slander lobbies that call any criticism of israel “anti-Semitic”.

      Even if that were true, “there is consensus that the labelling of organisations and individuals by the ADL (particularly as antisemitic) should be attributed.” That converts it into an opinion. Nowhere have you demonstrated that the ADL has a track record of falsifying facts, not opinions such as labeling people.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        8 months ago

        Pre-emptive means that an imminent threat is coming and they struck it first. Aka that “israel had the right to defend itself” before even being attacked. Which was a straight up lie.

        If you’re not informed about the ADL here’s a decent article on it. The more you read up on the ADL the worse it gets.

        Since the 7 October attacks, the ADL has been working with law enforcement to crack down on college campus activism that it sees as antisemitic. They developed a legal strategy to go after branches of Students for Justice in Palestine, and reached out to 200 university leaders calling on them to investigate the group for allegedly providing support to Hamas, which the group vehemently denies. ADL has described grassroots calls for protests of Israel’s military campaign as “pro-Hamas activism”.

        • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
          0·
          8 months ago

          Again, Wikipedia’s reliable source listings are only concerned about the quality of the source’s factual reporting. Having a horrible bias in judgement does not preclude factual reporting.

          had the right to defend itself” before even being attacked

          And many people think that’s wrong. Just saying that that’s the reason Israel and most publications claim Israel did that is not claiming that it was justified.

          • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            8 months ago

            Calling anti Palestine protests pro Hamas or anti Semitism is not factual.

            Having a “antisemitic incident counter” which increases every time someone says “free Palestine” is not factual.

            • Aatube@kbin.socialOP
              0·
              8 months ago

              Again, labels, especially of antisemitism, are considered opinions and attributed.

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                8 months ago

                The ADL is used as a source for “anti Semitism statistics” which are per definition rigged. An organisation that claims to be anti racism and prejudice which raison d’etre is to smear anyone including Jews which are against israel is not just “opinions”. The ADL is a piece of filth that enables Genocide by using anti-Semitism as a shield for israel.

                The ADL defies its entire point of existence. Classifying pro palestine protests as anti Semitic and hate speech is per definition a lie.

                  • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    21·
                    8 months ago

                    Which they also have no authority for becuase one of their other main goals is spread anti-Arab propganda.

                    Under the guise of fighting hate speech, the ADL has a long history of wielding its moral authority to attack Arabs, blacks, and queers.

                    In the present, the ADL has continued to militate against internationalist, intersectional anti-racism, and has used its status as “the nation’s premier civil rights organization” to do so. In a particularly painful example in 2016, the ADL’s director wrote a critique of the Movement For Black Lives policy platform, using the black spiritual phrasing of the civil rights movement: he told them to set aside intersectional bonds with Palestinian resistance and instead “keep our eyes on the prize.” At the same time, the ADL has consistently used the language of civil rights, and its position as an authority on them, to describe Israeli state military violence as liberatory and Palestinian resistance, including non-violent civil resistance, as extremist. This habit isn’t incidental: the ADL is now a vetter of content for YouTube, where videos relating to the Boyscott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement have been censored as hate speech. It has also reportedly joined forces with Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft as well to “engineer solutions” to cyberhate, and is building a Silicon Valley “command center” to house these operations.

                    And one of their source articles where it becomes rather apparent that the ADL heavily pushes for islamophobic legislation

                    Shalev: You don’t think that “Muslim-baiting” is much more acceptable in the mainstream media than, say, “Jew-baiting”? There is a Congressman now who is calling for the authorities to keep track of the entire Muslim community.Foxman: I don’t think that’s Muslim-baiting. It’s a natural response. It may be wise or unwise. But I think America’s got an issue now, and not only America. You look at France, you look at London, you look at Amsterdam—most of these incidents have come from Muslim communities that have been brought in and are not assimilating. Just like after 9/11, America is now questioning where the balance is between security and freedom of expression: Should we follow the ethnic communities? Should we be monitoring mosques? This isn’t Muslim-baiting—it’s driven by fear, by a desire for safety and security.