For those unfamiliar with wikipedia processes, tldr talk pages are where discussion about articles happens. See Help:Talk pages for details.
Link goes to the talk page as of the currently-latest edit by Jimbo; here is the diff showing other edits to it since then.
see also:
- the current latest version of the article itself, as of today (last edit was four days ago): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_genocide&oldid=1319572343
- all edits by Jimbo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Wales
51 Comments
Sanctus@anarchist.nexus · 35 pts · 288d
Sit your ass down in Gaza, Jimbo. Your 'natural point of view' will drastically change.
davel@lemmy.ml · 19 pts · 288d
The oligarchs long ago made Jimmy an honorary member of their club, and there’s nothing neutral about that club. Not that “neutral” even exists outside of the mind palace of radical centrists.
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 24 pts · 288d
Yikes Wikipedia isn't just infiltrated by Zionists but created by one.
idriss@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 287d
Miro_Collas@masto.ai · 2 pts · 286d
@geneva_convenience Wiipedia's creators have no power over it. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.
@cypherpunks
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 286d
No Wikipedia is very influenced by Zionists. This page is proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Monitor
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 286d
False
Miro_Collas@masto.ai · 0 pts · 286d
@BrainInABox Ok
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 286d
Sorry for doubting your holy scripture
leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 23 pts · 288d
But not calling the Gaza genocide a genocide is a violation of truth, common sense, and basic decency...
mukt@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 288d
But is it neutral? /s
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 20 pts · 288d
Of course he did. Funny how he had no problem with their being a "Uyghur Genocide" page for multiple years before they eventually had to change it due to lack of evidence
holdenweb@freeradical.zone · 20 pts · 287d
@cypherpunks he is wrong, as many genocide specialist (including those from Israel) will tell him.
He just supports genocide against people of different colour. It’s the American way.
Miro_Collas@masto.ai · 17 pts · 287d
@cypherpunks Wikipedia is human-edited, and humans are flawed. However, the body of editors overall means it is self-correcting, in time. Jimbo may be a founder, but as an editor, his is one voice only. I think it is grossly unfair to condemn the entire thing over one person's views. It is still the best source of info there is - overall. Some of the replies here are... disturbing, frankly.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 286d
I don't understand how Wikipedia ended up becoming the literal Holy Scripture for western liberals.
This is a statement of pure religious faith.
Miro_Collas@masto.ai · 2 pts · 286d
@BrainInABox Is there a better one? Note that I said "overall" - meaning it isn't perfect.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 286d
A better one what? The best source of information will depend on the topic. The idea that there is a one stop shop for truth is pure religious thinking
Reginald_T_Biter@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 287d
I feel like there is a concerted effort to delegitimise Wikipedia recently. Long live Wikipedia.
MrNobody@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 287d
Knowledge, especially free and easily accessible knowledge is detrimental to elites. Under educated peoples are easy to coerce, control, manipulate, scapegoat, scare, etc. So the easier it is for people to educate themselves, or just be educated the worse it is. Capitalists by default want dumb workers who don't know the meaning of value, it's part of the reason theres been a massive anti-intellectualist push this last decade or so.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 286d
Yeah, I'm sure the elites are terrified at you having access to articles overwhelmingly written by western libertarians that happily and frequently source right wing pundits.
Miro_Collas@masto.ai · 3 pts · 286d
@BrainInABox Left AND right wing "pundits" are frequently cited. Sometimes there are editing "wars" where the two sides erase each other's edits, but those are swiftly stopped and the issue is debated until a neutral consensus emerges.
The right detest wikipedia because their lies are removed, so they created grokipedia. Some of the left hate it for the same reason. Bizarre
@MrNobody
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 286d
Right wing pundits are cited overwhelmingly more and given vastly more wait, often being treated as reliable and undisputed sources of truth. If you look at the largest sources of pro-Isreal propaganda over the last two years, there's a good chance you'll find them on Wikipedia's trusted source list.
No, what happens is that one side locks down the discussion, reverts all changes, refuses to debate in good faith, calls in sympathetic admins to discipline their opponents, locks the page, and, from personal experience, begins making organised attempts to dox dissenters. This is why dogshit right wing pundits like Anne Applebaum, and literal CIA propaganda outlets like Radio Free Asia, remain up as "reliable" sources permanently.
The far right detest it, the neoliberal centre right adore it for enshrining western supremacist neo-liberalism as cultural gospel.
No, they hate it because the truth is removed and propaganda from entrenched neoliberal Zionist sources is treated as gospel.
Miro_Collas@masto.ai · 0 pts · 286d
@BrainInABox Sorry but that's simply not true. Spent any time reading the talk pages to see how things work?
Also you didn't answer my question on a better source of info.
[Added: never mind, I see you replied separately.]
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 286d
Yes, I have spent time reading the talk pages, which is how I know it is true.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 286d
Wikipedia has been a great way to launder right wing punditry into a form liberals will accept. People who would never otherwise give credence to people like Anne Applebaum or Thomas Friedman will treat their words as indisputable gospel if they're copy pasted onto Wikipedia.
Miro_Collas@masto.ai · 1 pts · 287d
@Reginald_T_Biter Seems so - by the right (unsurprising) and the left (which does surprise me, to a degree).
biotin7@sopuli.xyz · 2 pts · 286d
That's what happens when you lack critical thinking.
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml · 15 pts · 287d
We cant afford to be neutral on a moving train.
Now playing System of a Down - Deer Dance
GiorgioPerlasca@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 288d
This is not an isolated incident, but a preview: more liberal masks are poised to fall.
davel@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 288d
English language Wikipedia is a US psyop. I wonder how much Atlanticist propaganda gets stuffed into other languages’ Wikipedias.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 288d
I don't know if what the Grayzone writes is true (well, probably is), but their choice of words reads unhinged. Coterie, cabal, gang, disciple.
But wait, author is Max Bluementhal, isn't he the useful imperialist-owned idiot that's often on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News? Yes he is.
aReallyCrunchyLeaf@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 288d
His reporting on Gaza is pretty good and his record is consistent. What imperialist-owners are you referring to?
ThirdConsul@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 287d
He's invited to, and used by Tucker on Fox News to push Fox News's views and make them normalized and sound, because TC was saying "oh, and leftists agree with me on that" quoting MB.
PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 286d
Isn't the UN like what makes the decision? Like the Geneva convention? Like what body needs to say it's a genocide for it to be a fact? https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds
hyacin@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 288d
Wow, with how much the right hated them I just assumed they were good guys. So much for that idea. Will no longer be supporting financially either.
lemonlolita@calckey.world · 10 pts · 287d
@cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
There is no neutral POV regarding Genocide! Clainlming there is, just means you support genocide!
Mubelotix@jlai.lu · 3 pts · 287d
I can't even talk on that page. This is how wikipedia dies
vega@veganism.social · 3 pts · 288d
TacoButtPlug@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 287d
I stopped giving a shit about and even using Wikipedia back in 2019 when they locked everybody in Southern California using a certain major service out of making edits to any article. I was trying to edit an article on carbon because they had an isotope incorrectly labeled and I was told multiple times by Wikipedia volunteers and their staff that there is some dog joke bot that made it really impossible for them to control ... so they locked millions of people out of making any kind of edits because dog jokes. So the infactual science stayed in the carbon article and that's when I realized Wikipedia is just controlled by a handful of assholes. I stopped donating then. When I asked them who gets to make edits they said they're not really sure who the volunteers are but they trust them and when I asked Wikipedia staff how they account for the trustworthiness of who their editors are and what their intentions are, staff had no answer. But I can't make an edit to a carbon article but anon can ... even if they have some sort of agreement behind the scenes about controlling the information on Wikipedia. That's no problem. Just, you know, infactual information about a carbon isotope that's the problem. Fuck Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Britannica still rules and is worth the money.
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 287d
I assume that block is not still in effect?
Out of curiosity, was this error eventually corrected, or is it still wrong today?
I just looked for the first time in years and it appears you can read it for free... What do you get by paying for it besides disabling the ads (which my ad blocker already does)?
I see they have a list of changes to articles now, but they don't show the old versions or diffs between them.
Also I see there are "Quick summary" and "Ask the chatbot a question" buttons on every page 🤡
TwentyEight@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 285d
DrMartinu@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 288d
myszka@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 287d
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 4 pts · 287d
Value judgements? Genocide is an objective thing. It’s clearly defined, with zero “good vs evil” involved in its definition.
myszka@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 286d
It is clearly defined, but deciding what fits that definition and what doesn't is not at all objective, it totally depends on which side you're on. And since accusing somebody of something implies you're yourself innocent, accusing of genocide is saying "they bad we good", thus dehumanizing "them" as irrational "bad" and rejecting the attempt to understand the conflict in its entirety and in its controversial nature.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 286d
Apart from the fact that virtually every genocide expert has declared this a genocide. Including those from Israel.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 286d
Genocide is bad, genocide denialism and apologia is bad. Fuck off
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 286d
Take this Holocaust denial apologia and fuck off.
myszka@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 286d
I appreciate you taking time to reply!
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 286d
Fuck off, holocaust denier
myszka@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 286d
lemonwood@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 287d
All ethical systems rely on example applications. Israel's morality can not be measured by any moral system. Rather, it's actions are so abhorrent, that any moral systems merit will in the future be measured by whether it judges Israel's actions as bad.
myszka@lemmy.ml · -2 pts · 286d
Ethics shouldn't be used in this context in the first place, because ethics is about defining what's good and what's bad for you and not about trying to apprehend the manifoldness of things
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 286d
What a fucking stupid thing to say
leftzero@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 3 pts · 287d
I mean, genocide is pretty objectively bad.
Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 287d
And just like that, Wiki made itself useless in this world...