Not The Onion

12546 readers

1337 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

kescusay

552

19-page PDF accuses Wikipedia of bias against Israel, suggests editors be forced to reveal their real names, and demands a new feature allowing people to view the history of Wikipedia articles (signpost.news)

submitted 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) by [email protected] to c/nottheonion

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 32 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

The present report does not seem intended to be an academic publication, although it has already been used as a citation in the article Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

But primary research isn't allowed as a source on Wikipedia...

[–] [email protected] 12 points 8 months ago (1 children)

(someone smarter than me correct me if im wrong but) in this case it’s considered a non-primary source since the article is citing what the WJC said about Wikipedia (their criticism), not the WJC’s original research on the subject.

disclaimer have edited wikipedia maybe once in my life, only a small clue what im talking about

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's correct, except it's still considered a primary source, which can be cited to see what a group said if due.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 8 months ago (1 children)

wait can you clarify? this comment made me more confused /gen if you are willing

[–] [email protected] 10 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Primary sources and research cannot be cited to support objective facts. However, they can be used to cite criticism from a group. The only difference with your original reply is that being cited as criticism instead of fact does not magically make the source secondary.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

okay gotcha thanks for the clarification! love me an internet discussion that ends with me being smarter

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

right, i kind of used the word “referenced” there intentionally, since the actual article would likely cite an actual academic publication which speaks on the matter

thanks for the info!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

(I meant to quote from the article but forgot to style it as a blockquote)

(speaking of which, Wikipedia's editors hate decoration, which they consider to be juvenile and include that little pastel vertical line on the left of blockquotes, in favor of the browser default of indenting the quote on both sides)