Man your comment was really impartial until that comment. So close…
Comment on Wikipedia co-founder joins editing conflict over the Gaza genocide page
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 6 days ago
The wiki principe of multiple people editing articles and articles integrating multiple viewpoints based on good sources totally fails if there is no common ground left for people to agree. You can’t write an article if some editors are accusing the subject of the article of commiting genocide while others think that they are waging a justified war of defense. Or if some people think that Donald Trump is the saviour of the United States that will make it great again and other people have more sensible views on him.
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Entheon@lemmy.world 6 days ago
This is a Lemmy comment section, not wikipedia. Besides, the last line agrees with a majority of the US at this point.
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
So… that means one side of Gaza is sensible and the other isn’t? That’s the only take after their last comment.
GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world 6 days ago
[deleted]plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Just pointing out that with their last comment, their other point can be taken as one side being sensible, while the other isn’t.
What does that have to do with boot licking?
zkfcfbzr@lemmy.world 6 days ago
“All issues have only one sensible side and the rest are insensible” is not the takeaway from their comment. Some issues have multiple sensible sides. Other issues might have one sensible sides and several nonsense sides. All their last comment did was provide an example of the latter. They seem to take no stance on what type of issue their first example is.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 days ago
How so? Do you think believing that a demented openly fascist reality TV star is the savior of the US is a sensible thing to believe?
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
How did you get that point from my comment?
tabular@lemmy.world 6 days ago
It shouldn’t matter if people agree if they both seek the true. If trustworthy sources have verifiable evidence that points different way then the article can present all possibilities. If one side has more/better evidence then present that as primary.
unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 6 days ago
Thats is how Wikipedia has always operated. Wikipedia articles should be and mostly are entirely made up of information that comes from other sources. They are basically just fancy packaging that combines information from hundreds of sources into a single article thats easier to understand.
Hubi@feddit.org 6 days ago
The problem with this specific conflict is that otherwise “reputable” news agencies are just repeating what their sources are saying because they cannot verify the details of what’s actually going on on the ground in Gaza. So you get shaky cellphone footage of some people getting shot and some humanitarian NGOs will publish that civilians are being murdered. A journalist writes an article about it. The Israeli military then publishes a statement that they killed some Hamas official and his henchmen. Another journalist writes an article about it. Both newspapers are usually credible sources that are accepted on Wikipedia. So what do you do? Who is actually right?