Quote from him:

I assume good faith of everyone who has worked on this Gaza “genocide” article. At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested.

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.”

Respect for Jimmy Wales 📉📉

  • Sal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    I’m actually glad that most of the other editors on the page are pushing back against him. Just because you created something cool or useful it does not mean your word is gospel!

    • GreyYeti@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      This is why Wikipedia will remain a trusted source for a generation and Grokipedia will be a trivia question in 5 years. Even as people turn to LLMs for knowledge, the talk page and open history with all the old versions archived will make it a respected source of truth.

    • FundMECFS@anarchist.nexusOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 days ago

      Unfortunately he does have significant power within the wikimedia foundation (parent of wikipedia). He’s got a permanent seat on the board.

      Thankfully wikipedia editors tend to act quite independently of wikimedia. But this sort of weighing opinion acting like they have sway on a controversial topic by Jimmy Wales (especially in the midst of wikipedia getting threats from the federal government), worries me a little that wikipedia may have its editorial independence under threat. (A talk page comment is still relatively minor, thankfully.)

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        19 days ago

        wales says all kinds of things all the time. some good, some bad. but after all he is the libertarian who built wikipedia’s anarchistic processes and editorial independence, so i heavily doubt this’ll have any challenge to that independence

        • FundMECFS@anarchist.nexusOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          19 days ago

          While it may look anarchist on the surface. Wikipedia is very much heirarchical and the power lies in few admins.

          As an anarchist myself, and someone who has A LOT of edits on wikipedia, I wouldn’t call wikipedia anarchist. Crowdsourced, sure. Anarchist, no. The editor culture is no where near there.