On July 25, after a couple of months of debate, the Wikipedia entry “Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza” was changed to “Gaza genocide.” This was done despite the fact that the International Court of Justice in the Hague has not made an official ruling on the matter, in the wake of South Africa’s petition to the court alleging that Israel is committing or facilitating genocide in Gaza.

The Los Angeles-based Jewish Journal, which followed the Wikipedia discussion and vote, wrote that the editors who voted on this change claimed to be relying on an academic consensus based on statements of experts on genocide, human rights, human rights law and Holocaust historians.

177 points

Inb4 ‘WIKIPEDIA IS HAMAS!!’ allegations start being thrown

permalink
report
reply
82 points
*

They’ll start a new wiki like conservatives did. Call it Zionedia.

permalink
report
parent
reply
52 points

this is perfect though. Because it takes them away from slowing down progress on wikipedia and instead wastes their time on something with shit SEO.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

And the nazis will hopefully leave to go there as well

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It already exists. Conservapedia

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Given enough time, we’re gonna end up with two flavors of absolutely everything: normal, and racism incarnate

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Wikipedia headquarters and the editor under school in Gaza?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Haven’t they been doing that since wiki said adl wasn’t a good source?

permalink
report
parent
reply
121 points

Next up: a full congressional investigation into Wikipedia

permalink
report
reply
46 points

Conservapedia will finally reach the mainstream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_forks_of_Wikipedia

A number of content forks of the open-source encyclopedia Wikipedia have been created:

  • Enciclopedia Libre, a 2002 fork of the Spanish Wikipedia created in opposition to perceived plans to add advertising to Wikipedia

  • Conservapedia, a 2006 fork of the English Wikipedia that aims to present a conservative-friendly worldview

  • Qiuwen Baike, a 2023 fork of the Chinese Wikipedia that aims to be compliant with Chinese government policies

  • Ruwiki (Wikipedia fork), a 2023 fork of the Russian Wikipedia that aims to be compliant with Russian government policies

permalink
report
parent
reply
96 points

Conservapedia views Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[9] falsely claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer, praises Republicanpoliticians, supports celebrities and artistic works it believes represent moral standards in line with Christian family values, and espouses fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism.

I couldn’t have made it up, WHAT THE FUCK lmao

permalink
report
parent
reply
46 points

That site is good for a laugh - a complete alternate universe devoid of science, evidence, or conscious thought.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

falsely claims that abortion increases risk of breast cancer

Ironically, they were close to a point that might actually support their views. Birth control does increase the risk of breast and cervical cancer. It also lowers ovarian, endometrial, and colon cancer risk, but they’re not presenting complete information either way, so they could just ignore those parts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò: Macron married a tranny, Obama ‘accompanied by muscular man in wig’. [146]

Fucking hell. This is the shit they take seriously!

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

Conservapedia, a 2006 fork of the English Wikipedia that aims to present a conservative-friendly worldview

Further evidence that conservatives are snowflake little shitbirds that cant handle reality.

permalink
report
parent
reply
74 points

By the way this Haertz article is making false claims.

From the wikipedia talk page:

Just fyi that Haaretz just dropped some propaganda about this article claiming that since its name change it “was regularly getting 55,000 views per day,” which is a demonstrably false claim.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide

permalink
report
reply
60 points

Wikipedia is now in the interesting position of having to write an encyclopaedia article about the discussions about their original page, in which I suspect they cannot cite themselves as a source.

permalink
report
reply
7 points

Unless their “talk” page is about academics resolving the name change based on acacemic concensus. It’d still be “us confirming us”, but with citations and constructive resources.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Sure, but I assume there will have to be a regular Wikipedia page (or at least section) about the discussion of Wikipedia’s naming of the main article.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points

Its likely too early (For Wikipedia) just because the ICJ hasn’t made a ruling. The genocide however is pretty plain to see and has been all year. Wikipedia has always done weird and often inconsistent things around the evidence allowed and sufficient to support statements in its articles so its not a new issue.

permalink
report
reply
100 points
*

The ICJ ruling will take years though.

I think the most similar genocide to the Gaza genocide is the Bosnian genocide. The Srebrenica massacre took place in 1995 and the ICJ ruled in 2007.

So, the Gaza genocide might take until 2035 before it is all legally settled.

In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.

Since it looks like a genocide and the initial findings support the case that genocide is likely being committed, it seems to border on genocide denial to call it anything else.

Edit to add: I also don’t see people complaining about Wikipedia calling the Rohingya genocide a genocide, even though it is legally in the same phase as the Gaza genocide.

permalink
report
parent
reply
61 points

In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, shits like a duck. Probably a duck.

Totally okay with calling it a genocide- and while they dither on what a slow-as-fuck court says, people are dying en masse.

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points
*

Israel is starving the population, bombing them, shooting them, blockading them, it has destroyed all the medical facilities, educational institutions, all the infrastructure, it has cut off electricity and water and blocks or kills anyone trying to help the people to live. Israeli leaders openly express genocidal intent. There’s no doubt this is genocide.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points
*

shits like a duck.

In ponds?

Kidding aside, it’s ABSOLUTELY a genocide. There’s no doubt about it by any credible definition.

That Wikipedia has started calling it a genocide is a much needed step that removes one of the few remaining straws that Hasbarists and other genocide deniers have left to grasp at.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The ICJ ruling will take years though.

As far as genocide deniers are concerned, that’s the idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

In the interim, Wikipedia and all of us need to decide what to call it.

i mean, we could also just not have started referring to it as a genocide, but uh, we jumped the gun there a little bit.

It’s always interesting to me how people will latch on to certain words so aggressively and refuse to cede even minor ground if it requires changing wording.

i mean even referring to it as “likely genocide” would make it like 10x more palatable.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Removed by mod
permalink
report
parent
reply
43 points

They relied on academics and genocide experts. It’s not weird or inconsistent with reality, regardless of propaganda.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah, they’re inconsistent from article to article, because it depends on how many editors show up.

The more editors generally means a more consistent result/accurate result.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points
*

Yeah. One time I edited the Wikipedia article on the human pancreas to say it was just a worthless organ taking up valuable internal real estate. My edit got redacted pretty quickly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

It has never been an organ of distinction

permalink
report
parent
reply

World News

!world@lemmy.world

Create post

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

  • Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:

    • Post news articles only
    • Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
    • Title must match the article headline
    • Not United States Internal News
    • Recent (Past 30 Days)
    • Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
  • Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think “Is this fair use?”, it probably isn’t. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.

  • Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.

  • Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.

  • Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19

  • Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

  • Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

  • Rule 7: We didn’t USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you’re posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Community stats

  • 12K

    Monthly active users

  • 5.5K

    Posts

  • 54K

    Comments