| ▲ | sequoia 2 hours ago | |
this is so crazy. How does this accord with wikipedia's NOR & NPV stances? This is a case of "if you abandon your convictions when it's inconvenient, you never really had convictions in the first place." | ||
| ▲ | richardfeynman an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
This whole affair should get much more attention. If one topic on Wikipedia can be so manipulated, any topic on Wikipedia can, and it's no longer a reliable source of knowledge. I hope The Wikimedia Foundation can get its act together, and I admire the courage of Jimmy Wales for speaking up about this, but I've also stopped donating. I want no part of this. | ||
| ▲ | dlubarov 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |
I would say it absolutely violates the NPOV policy, and it's worth noting that both Wikipedia founders share this view [1] [2]. It's the only thing they've agreed on in many years. Ultimately it's just a numbers game - Wikipedia almost always follows consensus, even when the consensus is to (effectively, without admission) throw neutrality or other rules out the window. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_22#... | ||