4 ms·

Seems pretty important to require a neutral tone regardless of how egregious the acts are described in the entry. This is what makes Wikipedia good.

fumeux_fume 11mo ago
I think that goes without saying. The real question is what's the line between neutrality and letting a vocal minority dictate editorial decisions? Especially when the vocal minority has biased incentives towards making those changes.
thrance 11mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- mieses 11mo ago
  Is it true that "trust a majority" is a "good"? Or just the opinion of the majority?
  - croon 11mo ago
    If it's a majority of topic experts, I think it is. I work with many (might even include myself) and we disagree constantly. If we do agree on something, I'm fairly confident it's accurate and trustworthy.
  - thrance 11mo ago
    You can read their arguments on the discussion page; don't act like this is just an appeal to authority.
undeveloper 11mo ago
> Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?”
raxxorraxor 11mo ago
The Gaza page in question is not very good though. To be honest, this is one of the most eggregious pieces of bad information on Wikipedia I have seen yet. Don't take my word for it, look up the sources yourself. The formality at least is decent, so you can look up the sources most statements in the article itself are based on. In that context, I think "neutral tone" can quite safely be read as an euphemism. There is no good solution to solve this dilemma specifically, good to see that Wales still cares.
DiogenesKynikos 11mo ago
Jimmy Wales is not asking for a neutral tone. He's asking for a change in the content of the article: specifically, it must no longer state that Israel is committing a genocide. The "problem" is that almost all of the sources that Wikipedia typically considers reliable now say that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. Wikipedia editors discussed the sources ad nauseam and came to this conclusion. Jimmy Wales wants them to just reverse that decision, regardless of what high-quality sources say. He's saying that Wikipedia should treat denials by various governments as being of equal reliability as academic journal articles studying the issue. So if Marco Rubio goes in front of a microphone and says, "There's no genocide in Gaza," that should be treated as an equally valid source as a dozen academics who study genocide publishing peer-reviewed articles. Needless to say, what Jimmy Wales is demanding goes against Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and neutrality. "Both sides" is not always neutral.

fumeux_fume 11mo ago

I think that goes without saying. The real question is what's the line between neutrality and letting a vocal minority dictate editorial decisions? Especially when the vocal minority has biased incentives towards making those changes.

thrance 11mo ago

[flagged]

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
mieses 11mo ago
Is it true that "trust a majority" is a "good"? Or just the opinion of the majority?
- croon 11mo ago
  If it's a majority of topic experts, I think it is. I work with many (might even include myself) and we disagree constantly. If we do agree on something, I'm fairly confident it's accurate and trustworthy.
- thrance 11mo ago
  You can read their arguments on the discussion page; don't act like this is just an appeal to authority.

undeveloper 11mo ago

> Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?”

raxxorraxor 11mo ago

The Gaza page in question is not very good though. To be honest, this is one of the most eggregious pieces of bad information on Wikipedia I have seen yet. Don't take my word for it, look up the sources yourself. The formality at least is decent, so you can look up the sources most statements in the article itself are based on. In that context, I think "neutral tone" can quite safely be read as an euphemism. There is no good solution to solve this dilemma specifically, good to see that Wales still cares.

DiogenesKynikos 11mo ago

Jimmy Wales is not asking for a neutral tone. He's asking for a change in the content of the article: specifically, it must no longer state that Israel is committing a genocide. The "problem" is that almost all of the sources that Wikipedia typically considers reliable now say that Israel has been committing genocide in Gaza. Wikipedia editors discussed the sources ad nauseam and came to this conclusion. Jimmy Wales wants them to just reverse that decision, regardless of what high-quality sources say. He's saying that Wikipedia should treat denials by various governments as being of equal reliability as academic journal articles studying the issue. So if Marco Rubio goes in front of a microphone and says, "There's no genocide in Gaza," that should be treated as an equally valid source as a dozen academics who study genocide publishing peer-reviewed articles. Needless to say, what Jimmy Wales is demanding goes against Wikipedia's policies on sourcing and neutrality. "Both sides" is not always neutral.