4 ms·

> In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list

> In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list of banned and partially banned sources. Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back.

725686 2y ago
Tell that to Elon.
- nh23423fefe 2y ago
  This non sequitur is indicative of political derangement
sjsidhdbsjj 2y ago
[flagged]
- qohen 2y ago
  From the Leo Frank Wikipedia page [0]: "In modern times, despite strong evidence pointing to Frank's innocence, the case has become a modern focal point for neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. This is partly because it led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League but also because it fed into anti-semitic conspiracy theories claiming Jewish control of the media. As a consequence, in recent years a number of websites have been established by white supremacists disputing the prevailing consensus of Frank's innocence." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank#Later_consensus:_a_miscarriage_of_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank#Later_consensus:_a_m...
- tim333 2y ago
  >...turn a blind eye to Jewish ones. I seem to see about twenty stories about Israeli atrocities daily. Maybe they are not regarded as being as heinous as the KKK because if you read the details they actually not as heinous?
tivert 2y ago
>> In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list of banned and partially banned sources. > Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back. Wikipedia still considers the ADL reliable for "going after political opposition" in the "nationalist politics cesspool": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per.... It's super clear that, on Wikipedia, "the rules of the game became the game." Content arguments are won through pretty biased debates behind the scenes on the "reliability" of sources.
- talldayo 2y ago
  They very much call out the unreliability of the ADL on the topic of modern Zionism and topics concerning the Israel-Palistine conflict. I think that is the proper path of caution to take, unless they prove to be as fickle about world politics as they are holding Israel accountable. Whatever you perceive to be the process for debating these topics, I do not think the ADL (or similar organizations) has any relevant contributions to make on Wikipedia's presentation of world events. Allowing these borderline-lobbyist organizations to claim anything with impunity is how the Internet's encyclopedia becomes nobody's encyclopedia.

725686 2y ago

Tell that to Elon.

nh23423fefe 2y ago
This non sequitur is indicative of political derangement

sjsidhdbsjj 2y ago

[flagged]

qohen 2y ago
From the Leo Frank Wikipedia page [0]: "In modern times, despite strong evidence pointing to Frank's innocence, the case has become a modern focal point for neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. This is partly because it led to the creation of the Anti-Defamation League but also because it fed into anti-semitic conspiracy theories claiming Jewish control of the media. As a consequence, in recent years a number of websites have been established by white supremacists disputing the prevailing consensus of Frank's innocence." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank#Later_consensus:_a_miscarriage_of_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Frank#Later_consensus:_a_m...
tim333 2y ago
>...turn a blind eye to Jewish ones. I seem to see about twenty stories about Israeli atrocities daily. Maybe they are not regarded as being as heinous as the KKK because if you read the details they actually not as heinous?

tivert 2y ago

>> In a related move, the platform’s editors recently voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the subject, adding it to their list of banned and partially banned sources. > Kinda surprising it didn't happen earlier. The ADL ruined their image when they stopped concerning themselves with defamation and started going after political opposition. Once you dip your toes into the nationalist politics cesspool, there really is no going back. Wikipedia still considers the ADL reliable for "going after political opposition" in the "nationalist politics cesspool": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Anti-Defamation_League https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Per.... It's super clear that, on Wikipedia, "the rules of the game became the game." Content arguments are won through pretty biased debates behind the scenes on the "reliability" of sources.

talldayo 2y ago
They very much call out the unreliability of the ADL on the topic of modern Zionism and topics concerning the Israel-Palistine conflict. I think that is the proper path of caution to take, unless they prove to be as fickle about world politics as they are holding Israel accountable. Whatever you perceive to be the process for debating these topics, I do not think the ADL (or similar organizations) has any relevant contributions to make on Wikipedia's presentation of world events. Allowing these borderline-lobbyist organizations to claim anything with impunity is how the Internet's encyclopedia becomes nobody's encyclopedia.