Wikipedia Editors Won’t Allow Gaza Health Ministry to be Called ‘Hamas Run’
“it would suggest that Hamas directly influences the numbers and casts doubt over the numbers when the ministry is widely viewed as reliable”
It looks like the leftists who control Wikipedia are running interference for Hamas.
The Jewish Journal reports:
Wikipedia Editors Place a Near Total Ban on Calling Gaza Health Ministry “Hamas-Run”
Wikipedia editors have decided to impose a near total ban on the use of the “Hamas-run” qualifier in articles citing the Gaza Health Ministry’s numbers.
A formal discussion known as a Request for Comment (RfC) was launched in July; in RfCs, editors put in their “!votes” supporting their stated position on a contested issue and a closer (an uninvolved Wikipedian in good standing) renders a verdict based on the numbers and strength of the arguments in regards to site policy. Because Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect what reliable sources say, editors sparred over whether or not sources use such a qualifier when citing the ministry’s numbers and if sources view the ministry’s numbers as reliable.
Editors also argued over if it would be a violation of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy to include the qualifier, with those against the use of the qualifier contending that doing so would violate NPOV because it would suggest that Hamas directly influences the numbers and casts doubt over the numbers when the ministry is widely viewed as reliable. Editors in favor of the qualifier contended that it would be more neutral to include the qualifier on first mention because Hamas is a belligerent to the conflict and has been designated as a terror organization by several Western countries. There was also a question of redundancy, as editors against the qualifier opined that it’s implied that Hamas runs Gaza and noted that Wikipedia doesn’t refer to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) as the “Israel-run” or “Netanyahu-run” IDF or the State Department as the “Democrat-run State Department.” Those in favor of the qualifier contended that Wikipedians should not assume that the readers knows that Hamas, a terror organization, runs Gaza.
The bulk of the RfC occurred during a short timeframe in July; a closer did not render a verdict on the discussion until Sept. 24.
“This discussion resulted in a consensus that the name of the Gaza Health Ministry should not be qualified with ‘Hamas-run’ or similar, unless the connection is otherwise discussed and relevant,” the closer ruled. “The numbers are pretty clear on this (about 3:1). Evaluating the arguments provided, there is no policy basis to assess the consensus differently; those in favor of using the qualifier mainly rely on a numerical argument about sources, but this has been criticized on several points and is far from overriding enough to carry the RFC, considering the numerous well-reasoned [opposition].”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Any entry in Wikipedia that can be tainted by ideology will be. This should be chiseled in granite for posterity.
Even relatively uncontroversial topics can contain random vandalism. And there’s been at least a couple instances where entire articles stayed up for months and even won site awards before being outed as complete fabrications.
Edit wars are won by whoever has the most time and motivation. That’s usually the slacktivist college kids who don’t have to work.
Don’t rely on a wiki as anything other than a casual starting point for research.
Random vandalism affects all sorts of articles, and can lurk for long periods on articles that are rarely visited, simply because nobody notices them.
Years ago I used to do vandalism cleanup on WP. On one occasion I came across an odd claim on a very popular article. I checked the history, and this claim had been there for nearly a month and nobody had noticed and fixed it, so I did.
Then I checked what other edits the same IP had made, and found one article about an obscure Chinese queen about 2000 years ago, where the vandal had changed the queen’s name to something that to my ear sounded suspiciously modern. It was a name that wouldn’t stand out at all in China today, but was completely implausible for 2000 years ago. So I did some digging and found that the name belonged to a teacher at the school that owned the IP. Some kid thought it was funny to make his teacher a Chinese queen, and this obvious vandalism had persisted for many months without anyone noticing it, simply because the page got little traffic. How often does anyone research Chinese queens of the 1st century BCE?
good catch on this as wiki and politico and all the rest will not stop until america is destroyed by their leftism
“So, then, you concede that Hamas are chronic and habitual liars?”
I would say that’s a fair characterization.
What issue do you have with wikipedia agreeing with Tucker Carlson?
I get to be against this because my opposition isn’t that I don’t like the way wikipedia editors dress.
You defend this when it comes from Tucker Carlson so…….
We should all be pressuring google to end Wikipedia having privileged status.