I like how that page sources one of the most prominent Israeli genocide deniers as an authority
All definitions of genocide involve ethnicity, race, or religion as a motivational factor.[5] Genocide scholar Israel Charny has proposed a definition of genocide in the course of colonization.[7]
Do you have an approved list of scholars that Wikipedia is allowed to reference on the subject?
Seriously though the linked article seems pretty thoroughly referenced and it's not like he's the only source. He certainly has the academic background to be quoted and his Wikipedia page even calls out his views on Gaza.
All references to his work should be scrubbed as he clearly holds no expertise on the matter. If anything the opposite.
Him being quoted in articles like this shows how infested Wikipedia is with propaganda. Israelis raid Wikipedia to put their own propagandists in there as authorities.
Campists always do this. They find one source, reference, leader etc that is problematic, even if they have to stretch reality to do so, even if they are a minor participant, and use it to dismiss everything they disagree with
better definition than "systematic killing of a large number of people with some correlated traits" or other defintions that could include self defense
According to the "scholar" Israel, the settler colonial genocide enterprise, is not committing genocide. So his definition can be thrown into the trash.
It's a bit crazy to see the kinds of things that are on wikipedia lately about political and social subjects. Especially when you compare the english pages to other languages, and you realize that a lot of far-right leaning wordings and hints are scattered all around the english pages but not in the other versions.
I want to add that search engines like Google love pushing the communist killing articles whenever you search anything related to communism. Similarly, they do this with all topics which oppose the western narrative.
He who controls the flow of information controls the "truth". This is an abusable lever of power. If someone is being silenced, they can effortlessly be branded as a liar, because the arbiters of truth leave no lies behind. Welcome to the game.
Also, it's not like Wikipedia deletes absolutely everything of an account because it's blocked. If a page is deleted, the delete logs are there (iirc they can't be modified).
If content from a page is there, attribution requires the page history to be always present.
I am asking for evidence that you tried to write an article (or insert anti-zionist content in one) and got it reverted. (I should have worded the original request better)
People have tried it repeatedly. They get nuked instantly. It's fucking telling that Wikipedia defending liberals never actually have any idea how Wikipedia works.
Noo Wikipedia definitely does not have any systemic issues. Its not like its full of Nazis or zionist or power users. Oh wait all three of those are common "human interest" stories about the site.
That's silly - it's very much the work of humans with all the challenges that entails. However I find the Wikipedia projects aims of providing a globally accessible, multi language encyclopedia a pretty inspiring example of what global communities can achieve.
You can write it off if you want. There are a number of alternative projects that attempt similar things with their own approaches and political philosophies. Although none so far have achieved anywhere near the coverage that Wikipedia has.
You can't stay neutral on a moving train, and there's no such thing as neutrality in a world based on class struggle and class divisions.
Prolewiki is openly a pro-worker site, and wikipedia claims neutrality but in the practice is pro capitalist-imperialist. One is open and honest about its bias, the other is not.
Prolewiki is openly a pro-worker site, and wikipedia claims neutrality but in the practice is pro capitalist-imperialist. One is open and honest about its bias, the other is not.
The irony of not understanding that objectivity is not possible when describing events, while being subjective in your critique yourself.
Prolewiki is precisely as biased as Wikipedia, it just admits it, which is preferable since it is easier to be aware of your bias if you actually take it into account.
There is no such thing as a neutral point of view, if you have a brain capable of holding a point of view then you have a body that biases you towards your own survival, comfort and social connections.
That usually happens with any of the Wikipedia clones. The Wikimedia Foundation has flaws to how it works, but I've yet to see an organization try to replace Wikipedia while trying to keep any semblance of neutrality or impartiality.
It’s very much the work of humans with all the challenges that entails. However
However liberals will disregard the idea that Wikipedia isn't an unattenuated connection to pure truth out of hand. That's why I call it scripture; the idea that it has pervasive biases and inaccuracies is rejected without consideration; anything it states has considered true without possibility of question, even if the source Wikipedia is using would never be believed if it wasn't getting laundered through Wikipedia.
You seem to be painting with a very broad brush there. I've never considered Wikipedia to be free of these problems, I doubt there is any reference work that completely objectively true.
That’s silly - it’s very much the work of humans with all the challenges that entails. However I find the Wikipedia projects aims of providing a globally accessible, multi language encyclopedia a pretty inspiring example of what global communities can achieve.
didn't usaid used to have a similar motto only for it to be revealed less than 2 years ago that it was little more than a propaganda manufacturing enabler when trump gutted it?
People are still using the USAID closure as a point to Trump killing a lot of poor people around the world due to lack of access to medicine and food. The organization seemed to do both, being a psyop campaign while providing some material benefit to the communities they were in since providing aid is really good at winning hearts and minds.
compare the amount of money spent on skullduggery compared to the amount spent on on aid to learn where the organization's priorities lie. and be careful not to get suckered into how much they officially spend on aid since most of skullduggery is officially categorized as aid.
there are other organizations out there that will use everything you give them to help instead of turning most of it into pro-us-empire regime control.
Sure - but the point of usaid was being funded by the US government which has(had?) deeper pockets that your average NGO. Other nation states give more as a portion of GDP but there has been a lot of back sliding. Both China and Russia's foreign aid budgets are tiny both in absolute and relative to GDP terms. Only a few of the Nordics manage to exceed the UN guide of 0.7% of GDP.
Narrowing the scope this tightly -- without factoring in the global scale historical impact -- is probably the only way you can argue in favor of USAID.
87 Comments
makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world · 34 pts · 4d
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism_and_genocide
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 24 pts · 4d
I like how that page sources one of the most prominent Israeli genocide deniers as an authority
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml · 30 pts · 4d
stsquad@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 4d
Do you have an approved list of scholars that Wikipedia is allowed to reference on the subject?
Seriously though the linked article seems pretty thoroughly referenced and it's not like he's the only source. He certainly has the academic background to be quoted and his Wikipedia page even calls out his views on Gaza.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 4d
All references to his work should be scrubbed as he clearly holds no expertise on the matter. If anything the opposite.
Him being quoted in articles like this shows how infested Wikipedia is with propaganda. Israelis raid Wikipedia to put their own propagandists in there as authorities.
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -6 pts · 4d
Campists always do this. They find one source, reference, leader etc that is problematic, even if they have to stretch reality to do so, even if they are a minor participant, and use it to dismiss everything they disagree with
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 4d
Supporting Zionist propaganda to own the "campists".
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 11 pts · 4d
If you see Zionists the same as Nazis this would be akin to putting a Goebbels quote in the article.
But you do not see Zionists as Nazis clearly.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 17h
It's really telling that this got downvoted here. I'm amazed they didn't remove it, ban it, then snark on hexbear.
Facts are CIA propaganda, I guess?
pinto@sh.itjust.works · -6 pts · 3d
Facts hurt their feelings and that's why needed to make Conservapedia but in Red flavor.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 3d
What facts hurt the feelings of socialists, and why is making an explicitly Marxist-Leninist wiki a bad thing if it's all sourced properly?
pinto@sh.itjust.works · -9 pts · 3d
Facts, that's why Prolewiki isn't sourced properly. School essays are better sourced.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 3d
Can you give an example of a poorly sourced article that is not flagged as insufficiently sourced?
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -10 pts · 4d
better definition than "systematic killing of a large number of people with some correlated traits" or other defintions that could include self defense
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 4d
According to the "scholar" Israel, the settler colonial genocide enterprise, is not committing genocide. So his definition can be thrown into the trash.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works · -8 pts · 4d
still better than the numerous definitions thst water down the meaning to something as little as racialy inspired mass murder.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 4d
A definition of genocide which does not encompass the most obvious genocide in world history is a worthless definition of genocide.
Plenty of other definitions exist of non genocide advocates.
dessalines@lemmy.ml · 18 pts · 4d
Solumbran@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 4d
It's a bit crazy to see the kinds of things that are on wikipedia lately about political and social subjects. Especially when you compare the english pages to other languages, and you realize that a lot of far-right leaning wordings and hints are scattered all around the english pages but not in the other versions.
buran@lemmy.today · 6 pts · 4d
Read Nikola Tesla page in Serbian and Croatian. It's not political per se, but it's really funny.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 3d
Me omw to learn serbian and croatian
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it · 13 pts · 3d
Interessing >->
Well i guess i gotta make one when i have some free time, i wonder how fast it will get nuked
Edit: at least we have https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings
geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml · 10 pts · 3d
I want to add that search engines like Google love pushing the communist killing articles whenever you search anything related to communism. Similarly, they do this with all topics which oppose the western narrative.
PsycyTuna@feddit.nl · 1 pts · 2d
BrilliantantTurd4361@sh.itjust.works · 12 pts · 4d
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 18 pts · 4d
(Your post got removed but mine didn't. Somehow the hivemind missed that I was agreeing with you)
m532@lemmy.ml · 6 pts · 3d
The dog can easily be interpreted as wikipedia, preventing edits.
You scored an own goal.
Feathercrown@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 3d
It doesn't count as an own goal if you have to use a fringe interpretation to reverse the meaning lol
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · -1 pts · 3d
No, in this place that's totally valid. This is like the discourse equivalent of Appalachia inbred bloodlines
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 2d
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
sad_detective_man@sopuli.xyz · 0 pts · 2d
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2d
"Everyone capable of debunking my half-baked ideas about the world is an inhuman machine so I don't need to think about what they say."
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 17h
It's funny how calling them out gets removed/banned but they aren't a echo chamber hivemind.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 13 pts · 4d
You sure can. Your changes will immediately be reverted, you'll be banned, and, in my case, you'll be doxed, but you can do it.
goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org · 4 pts · 4d
Wtf Wikipedia editors
pinto@sh.itjust.works · -4 pts · 3d
I'm sure they have proof that happened. I'm sure of it.
FleetwoodLinux@lemmy.zip · 8 pts · 3d
Oh yes they should 100% totally point us to where they got doxxed that makes so much sense, it definitely wouldn't lead to more problems for them
pinto@sh.itjust.works · -3 pts · 3d
That happened.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 3d
It did, yes.
blindbunny@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 4d
Best they got https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_worker_deaths_in_United_States_labor_disputes
bennypr0fane@discuss.tchncs.de · 7 pts · 3d
So, why don't you write those pages OP?
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 17 pts · 3d
Because a Zionist will come in and undo those changes. I tried.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · -7 pts · 3d
With no evidence, you may as well be lying.
leg@leminal.space · 8 pts · 3d
He who controls the flow of information controls the "truth". This is an abusable lever of power. If someone is being silenced, they can effortlessly be branded as a liar, because the arbiters of truth leave no lies behind. Welcome to the game.
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · -2 pts · 2d
Take screenshots. Use Internet Archive to prove it. There are so many options that would convince people that at least you tried, that it's crazy.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 2d
Also, it's not like Wikipedia deletes absolutely everything of an account because it's blocked. If a page is deleted, the delete logs are there (iirc they can't be modified). If content from a page is there, attribution requires the page history to be always present.
eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 17h
How dare you expect them to have sources and proof!
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 3d
No worries you would not trust anything if it was not published by Reuters.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2d
I am asking for evidence that you tried to write an article (or insert anti-zionist content in one) and got it reverted. (I should have worded the original request better)
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 2d
Wikipedia logs IP and accounts so you will not receive that evidence.
Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 0 pts · 2d
K
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 14 pts · 3d
People have tried it repeatedly. They get nuked instantly. It's fucking telling that Wikipedia defending liberals never actually have any idea how Wikipedia works.
pineapple@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 3d
People do edits to prole wiki
ThirdConsul@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 2d
Nothing on annexation of Bhutan. It's failing the same damn test as wikipedia.
Malica@lemmy.zip · 6 pts · 3d
Wiki media is complicit and untrustworthy
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 2d
Noo Wikipedia definitely does not have any systemic issues. Its not like its full of Nazis or zionist or power users. Oh wait all three of those are common "human interest" stories about the site.
pineapple@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 3d
This is possibly one of the best examples I've seen so far.
elections in china (wikipedia)
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 4d
Careful op, Wikipedia is essentially Divine Scripture to western liberals.
stsquad@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 4d
That's silly - it's very much the work of humans with all the challenges that entails. However I find the Wikipedia projects aims of providing a globally accessible, multi language encyclopedia a pretty inspiring example of what global communities can achieve.
You can write it off if you want. There are a number of alternative projects that attempt similar things with their own approaches and political philosophies. Although none so far have achieved anywhere near the coverage that Wikipedia has.
dessalines@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 4d
Those humans specifically being, pro-western-imperialist white males.. Any other voices or viewpoints are silenced.
stsquad@lemmy.ml · -4 pts · 4d
The irony of posting a link to prolewiki which very much doesn't attempt a NPOV.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml · 12 pts · 3d
Neutral points of view do not exist, so it's better to honestly take a partisan stance than to do so while lying about it.
dessalines@lemmy.ml · 11 pts · 4d
You can't stay neutral on a moving train, and there's no such thing as neutrality in a world based on class struggle and class divisions.
Prolewiki is openly a pro-worker site, and wikipedia claims neutrality but in the practice is pro capitalist-imperialist. One is open and honest about its bias, the other is not.
lithiumground@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 2d
Yes, something should be pro-labor class
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 9 pts · 3d
Neither does Wikipedia, at least prolewiki doesn't lie about it
BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 2d
The irony of not understanding that objectivity is not possible when describing events, while being subjective in your critique yourself.
Prolewiki is precisely as biased as Wikipedia, it just admits it, which is preferable since it is easier to be aware of your bias if you actually take it into account.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 2d
There is no such thing as a neutral point of view, if you have a brain capable of holding a point of view then you have a body that biases you towards your own survival, comfort and social connections.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · -2 pts · 4d
That usually happens with any of the Wikipedia clones. The Wikimedia Foundation has flaws to how it works, but I've yet to see an organization try to replace Wikipedia while trying to keep any semblance of neutrality or impartiality.
m532@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 3d
Honesty = good.
True radlibs will never understand this.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 4d
However liberals will disregard the idea that Wikipedia isn't an unattenuated connection to pure truth out of hand. That's why I call it scripture; the idea that it has pervasive biases and inaccuracies is rejected without consideration; anything it states has considered true without possibility of question, even if the source Wikipedia is using would never be believed if it wasn't getting laundered through Wikipedia.
stsquad@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 4d
You seem to be painting with a very broad brush there. I've never considered Wikipedia to be free of these problems, I doubt there is any reference work that completely objectively true.
But it tries to be better one edit at a time.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · -1 pts · 4d
I'm generalising. You may not be guilty of this, but your average western liberal is. See, for example, other comments in this thread.
You're attaching a spiritual quality to an inanimate thing. Wikipedia doesn't "try" to be anything.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 2d
In fact, it often gets worse one edit at a time
stsquad@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 4d
fine, replace "it" with "the community" if the impersonal subject confuses you.
BrainInABox@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 3d
Well the community sure as hell doesn't try to be better; if anything they work hard to entrench these problems as hard as possible.
RiverRock@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 2d
Go fuck yourself
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 4d
didn't usaid used to have a similar motto only for it to be revealed less than 2 years ago that it was little more than a propaganda manufacturing enabler when trump gutted it?
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club · 4 pts · 4d
People are still using the USAID closure as a point to Trump killing a lot of poor people around the world due to lack of access to medicine and food. The organization seemed to do both, being a psyop campaign while providing some material benefit to the communities they were in since providing aid is really good at winning hearts and minds.
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 4d
compare the amount of money spent on skullduggery compared to the amount spent on on aid to learn where the organization's priorities lie. and be careful not to get suckered into how much they officially spend on aid since most of skullduggery is officially categorized as aid.
stsquad@lemmy.ml · -3 pts · 4d
I guess we don't have to worry about effect of the cuts then.
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 4d
there are other organizations out there that will use everything you give them to help instead of turning most of it into pro-us-empire regime control.
stsquad@lemmy.ml · -7 pts · 4d
Sure - but the point of usaid was being funded by the US government which has(had?) deeper pockets that your average NGO. Other nation states give more as a portion of GDP but there has been a lot of back sliding. Both China and Russia's foreign aid budgets are tiny both in absolute and relative to GDP terms. Only a few of the Nordics manage to exceed the UN guide of 0.7% of GDP.
eldavi@lemmy.ml · 5 pts · 3d
Narrowing the scope this tightly -- without factoring in the global scale historical impact -- is probably the only way you can argue in favor of USAID.
DaBPunkt@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 4d