3 ms·
What private religious groups do in their own publications is one thing, what's more concerning, and evident from this story, is the way some parts of Wikipedia
by comunii 7y ago
What private religious groups do in their own publications is one thing, what's more concerning, and evident from this story, is the way some parts of Wikipedia are mostly run by fringe groups and operate under their own rules.
I have seen other examples of this in the past. Pages about Hasidic rabbis will mention miracles they performed as undisputed fact, and will not mention facts about them that may be unflattering.
- baud147258 7y agoDo you have any link to such pages?
- Balgair 7y agoNot OP, but the biographies of rabbis do seem to not conform to the wikipedia standards. I've just done a very cursory look over a smidge of the pages, and nothing that the OP mentions is occurring, per my very brief look at it. That said, the style and tone of some of the bio pages isn't really the best. It is Wikipedia and you should assume that these lesser visited pages should not be super well polished. The talk pages seem to be pretty sparse as well. Though there is not be evidence of an 'agenda', the sniff test isn't really passed either, but you could say that of nearly any less popular page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Meir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbi_Meir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Leib_Rabinovich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Leib_Rabinovich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Ber_of_Mezeritch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_Ber_of_Mezeritch That said, OP's claims are a bit incredulous and I would also like to see the pages myself.