3 ms·
this 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
by sequoia 9mo ago
this 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 9mo 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 9mo 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 9mo 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.