Research Article: Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust

[Ognistysztorm]

I'll just skip the politics for now and say that this could be a seminal moment in anti-Wikipedia activism

Like that would DO anything

There are good reasons to be optimistic about this since the presentation is a sideline of the UNHCR meeting in Geneva, and is co-sponsored by twenty governments including Argentina, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy and even the US.

Former French premier Manuel Valls was one of the keynote speaker of the event where he promised that he'll "follow the findings more closely".

https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/ ... tisemitism

[Philomath]

I really don't think that anti-Semitic bias is one of the big neutrality problems on Wikipedia - far from it. There are plenty of counterexamples. Pro-USGOV, pro-CIA bias is orders of magnitude more prominent than anti-Jew bias.

But if that's the issue that's able to push Wikipedia criticism into the mainstream, so be it.

[boredbird]

I really don't think that anti-Semitic bias is one of the big neutrality problems on Wikipedia - far from it.

Generally it isn't. There's no shortage of editors who devoted to making sure of that, sometimes to a fault. What made this different was the obscurity of the dispute to anglophone advocacy editors, whose watchlists were likely filled with Israel vs. Palesitne articles and a few other obvious battlegrounds, and the power user status of the ringleader Piotrus.

[ericbarbour]

I really don't think that anti-Semitic bias is one of the big neutrality problems on Wikipedia - far from it.

Generally it isn't. There's no shortage of editors who devoted to making sure of that, sometimes to a fault. What made this different was the obscurity of the dispute to anglophone advocacy editors, whose watchlists were likely filled with Israel vs. Palesitne articles and a few other obvious battlegrounds, and the power user status of the ringleader Piotrus.

The whole mess was constantly editwarred, with an early (and erratic) pro-Israel bias in content thanks to the raving nuts who collected around the SlimVirgin/Jayjg axis of stupid. And even that shaky alliance only started to fall apart after the "Wikipediametric" scandal, in which Piotrus was a major figure. So much stupid, so much angry typing.

[Ognistysztorm]

As usual, the Signpost published a response extolling the virtues of their system, while trying to discredit the WJC report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ial_report

While the systems (such as "discussion forums") on Wikipedia are more than adequate, they are often vulnerable to minoritarian manipulations in the end. A close example is the Weimar constitution which was one of the most progressive constitutions at early 20th century, except that it contains a poison pill which we know how it turned out in the end.

[boredbird]

As usual, the Signpost published a response extolling the virtues of their system, while trying to discredit the WJC report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ial_report

If there is some other website which provides greater transparency into its administrative and editorial decisions, perhaps it would provide a useful model for us to emulate. However, it is hard to come up with one.

Maybe take a look at nytimes.com? They've innovated a radical new system in which at the top of every article is the real name of the person or people who wrote it, and there is also a list of the real names of the people who hire the writers and decide what pieces are published.

I'm told that some scholarly journals such as Journal of Holocaust Research are moving in the same direction.

[Ognistysztorm]

As usual, the Signpost published a response extolling the virtues of their system, while trying to discredit the WJC report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ial_report

If there is some other website which provides greater transparency into its administrative and editorial decisions, perhaps it would provide a useful model for us to emulate. However, it is hard to come up with one.

Maybe take a look at nytimes.com? They've innovated a radical new system in which at the top of every article is the real name of the person or people who wrote it, and there is also a list of the real names of the people who hire the writers and decide what pieces are published.

I'm told that some scholarly journals such as Journal of Holocaust Research are moving in the same direction.

Mandating real names on websites is not really a guarantee to safeguard against abuse (e.g. gaming of system to bully other users). Facebook, despite having a "real name policy", is still notorious for abuse and harassment incidents either from time to time. Sometimes Facebook displays some political or other biases and so didn't take action against harassers in some cases.

Cory Doctorow has a point about it:
https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1764651616593150399

[boredbird]

Mandating real names on websites is not really a guarantee to safeguard against abuse

And locking your front door is no guarantee that no one will break into your home.

Pretty funny advice coming from a burglar.

[Ognistysztorm]

Mandating real names on websites is not really a guarantee to safeguard against abuse

And locking your front door is no guarantee that no one will break into your home.

Pretty funny advice coming from a burglar.

In one point Justapedia thought about the approach in which they allow users to maintain pseudonymity, but on the condition that they have to submit real proof of identity such as driver license photos into their ticket system akin to KYC methods used in cryptocurrency websites. That feature could be activated on intervals when there is high vandalism activity so that it'd be harder for vandals to create multiple accounts and get around those restrictions.

[ericbarbour]

Pretty funny advice coming from a burglar.

I loled, shame on me