47 ms·
Wikipedia itself knows how much shit it's in. Every ongoing conflict and culture-war issue is a "contentious topic", which is Wikipedia code for "editors are at
by amiga386 10mo ago
Wikipedia itself knows how much shit it's in. Every ongoing conflict and culture-war issue is a "contentious topic", which is Wikipedia code for "editors are at each others' throats"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#List_of_contentious_topics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#L...
They have a giant pile of editors banned from topics until they can play nice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Active_editing_restrictions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions...
But you do give a great tip: at minimum, check the talk page. If it's longer than the article itself, run away.
Some articles are so far gone, even the talk page is locked down like Fort Knox. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide
That page even has an FAQ!
> Q1: Why does this article state that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, even though this is heavily contested and neither the ICJ nor the ICC have issued a final judgment?
> A1: A September 2025 request for comment (RfC) decided to state, in Wikipedia's own voice, that it is a genocide. The current lead is the result of later discussion on the specific wording.
- sequoia 10mo agothis is so crazy. How does this accord with wikipedia's NOR & NPV stances? This is a case of "if you abandon your convictions when it's inconvenient, you never really had convictions in the first place."
- dlubarov 10mo agoI would say it absolutely violates the NPOV policy, and it's worth noting that both Wikipedia founders share this view [1] [2]. It's the only thing they've agreed on in many years. Ultimately it's just a numbers game - Wikipedia almost always follows consensus, even when the consensus is to (effectively, without admission) throw neutrality or other rules out the window. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#h-Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales-20251102160300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#h-Statement_from_Larry_Sanger-Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales-20251104160200 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#...
- richardfeynman 10mo agoThis whole affair should get much more attention. If one topic on Wikipedia can be so manipulated, any topic on Wikipedia can, and it's no longer a reliable source of knowledge. I hope The Wikimedia Foundation can get its act together, and I admire the courage of Jimmy Wales for speaking up about this, but I've also stopped donating. I want no part of this.
- sequoia 10mo agoI also have stopped donating. I replied to a WM Foundation email explaining why and they said they don't have editorial control over wikipedia, i.e. their hands are tied. Well OK, but I'm not giving money to fund the promulgation of Jew hatred and blood libel. Sad state of affairs! I've given for years.