“At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested,” Wales said. He added that a “neutral approach would begin with a formulation such as: ‘Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.’” Currently, the article bases its position that a genocide exists on conclusions from United Nations investigations, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, and “multiple human rights groups,” among others.
“Israel is committing a genocide.” Is a factually neutral statement. I don"t see the problem. It’s no different thannsaying “The Earth is round.” Is that statement somehow taking a non-neutral stance on the flat earth topic?
JensSpahnpasta@feddit.org 5 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.
tabular@lemmy.world 5 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 5 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 5 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?
plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Man your comment was really impartial until that comment. So close…
Entheon@lemmy.world 5 days ago
This is a Lemmy comment section, not wikipedia. Besides, the last line agrees with a majority of the US at this point.
GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.world 5 days ago
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 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?