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.
Fuck Israel.
Have they never been on Wikipedia before. You can already see the edits and attribution. If their information is correct they should submit an edit and offer proof. Going to be hard for them to sweep the Palestinian genocide under the rug though.
Israel has a team of people influencing the image of their state positively throughout Wikipedia. Get fucked.
Well it’s not working
It’s working, but maybe they want to make it work even more
Gee, I wonder what some murders want with the real names of people who they don’t like.
Anyone curious why privacy is so important even if you’ve done nothing wrong?
Can you not literally see the edit history of Wikipedia articles?
The report actually suggests a new bias and neutrality editing framework with its own edit history, unrelated to existing content editing tools.
In other words, the argument is that the current editing framework does not do enough to specifically address bias and neutrality. That seems pretty clear to me regardless of current events.
I know edits to add and correct bias do happen. I agree it would be nice if power editors, at least, were not anonymous. I wish there was a Wikipedia that could only be edited be verified, trusted experts. The potential is there with the fediverse. And in fact I thought Wikipedia was working on this. I requested an invite but never got one.
Such edits for neutrality (as well as to insert bias) are made. There is a history. It is talked about and recorded. It is searchable. It is distributed. Man, you should hear these Wikipedia editors talk to each other if you haven’t, it’s like a different language.
Anyway: the source article suggests an extra layer to that system, with public standards and criteria supported by research, which it also proposed, and suggests that editors could be monitored for bias based on such standards.
I see the potential for draconian abuse but this is one website. As I said, I hoped there would be a fediverse instance to consolidate legitimate expert, factual information. Someone shared a website with me the other day that included such technical analysis for current events. I will link it when I get another minute.
E: here’s that link https://www.sciencemediacentre.org
I agree it would be nice if power editors, at least, were not anonymous.
Everything has to be sourced from a reputable source. So I don’t see why this is a huge problem. As long as they’re sourcing their edits, and using reputable, verifiable sources, why should it matter if they’re anonymous or not?
The current platform does enough to address bias and neutrality. If you are doing so bad you want a lopsided view of what you did, you’re supposed to fork it and let it die like other free speech oppressors do, not compile PDF with stupid suggestions to mainline.
Rather than talk about what Wikipedia should or shouldn’t do to improve, people should take the initiative of helping to improve it themselves. Wikipedia is ultimately a collective of its volunteer editors, so the best way of enacting change on the platform is getting more people to make informed, unbiased improvements to articles.
Wikipedia do lock articles so that only editors with good standing can change them. But obviously that’s not necessary for every article because 99% of articles are not political and are in fact about a type of moss that grows in the Canary Islands.
That’s what the world is about, so 99% of articles being about that moss makes sense
By the almighty god that lives in fantasy land known as heaven, can those genocidal monsters shut up already?
Only one thing is going to do that. Make the desert glass.
Glass with our weapons or salt, god style?
Well, I’m pretty sure we could figure out how to make really big bombs again. I’m less sure we could manage the salt thing.
Dropping salt on Israel would be a waste of good salt.
That sounds like antisemitic hate speech…
You’ll need to publish your full name now.
No red flags here at all.
All good. Make sure those dissenters get revealed.
I just – wtf is wrong with the world rn…?
The zionist scum hate Wikipedia because its hard to call it antisemitic
I’m sure Wikipedia are very concerned about this official PDF and they’re going to implement the recommended changes immediately.
this is hilarious
this PDF will probably be referenced in the “genocide denial” article in the not-too-distant future
