Sit your ass down in Gaza, Jimbo. Your 'natural point of view' will drastically change.

Yikes Wikipedia isn't just infiltrated by Zionists but created by one.

But not calling the Gaza genocide a genocide is a violation of truth, common sense, and basic decency...

@cypherpunks he is wrong, as many genocide specialist (including those from Israel) will tell him.

He just supports genocide against people of different colour. It’s the American way.

Of course he did. Funny how he had no problem with their being a "Uyghur Genocide" page for multiple years before they eventually had to change it due to lack of evidence

@cypherpunks Wikipedia is human-edited, and humans are flawed. However, the body of editors overall means it is self-correcting, in time. Jimbo may be a founder, but as an editor, his is one voice only. I think it is grossly unfair to condemn the entire thing over one person's views. It is still the best source of info there is - overall. Some of the replies here are... disturbing, frankly.

We cant afford to be neutral on a moving train.

Now playing System of a Down - Deer Dance

This is not an isolated incident, but a preview: more liberal masks are poised to fall.

English language Wikipedia is a US psyop. I wonder how much Atlanticist propaganda gets stuffed into other languages’ Wikipedias.

@cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
There is no neutral POV regarding Genocide! Clainlming there is, just means you support genocide!

Wow, with how much the right hated them I just assumed they were good guys. So much for that idea. Will no longer be supporting financially either.

Isn't the UN like what makes the decision? Like the Geneva convention? Like what body needs to say it's a genocide for it to be a fact? https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds

I can't even talk on that page. This is how wikipedia dies

I stopped giving a shit about and even using Wikipedia back in 2019 when they locked everybody in Southern California using a certain major service out of making edits to any article. I was trying to edit an article on carbon because they had an isotope incorrectly labeled and I was told multiple times by Wikipedia volunteers and their staff that there is some dog joke bot that made it really impossible for them to control ... so they locked millions of people out of making any kind of edits because dog jokes. So the infactual science stayed in the carbon article and that's when I realized Wikipedia is just controlled by a handful of assholes. I stopped donating then. When I asked them who gets to make edits they said they're not really sure who the volunteers are but they trust them and when I asked Wikipedia staff how they account for the trustworthiness of who their editors are and what their intentions are, staff had no answer. But I can't make an edit to a carbon article but anon can ... even if they have some sort of agreement behind the scenes about controlling the information on Wikipedia. That's no problem. Just, you know, infactual information about a carbon isotope that's the problem. Fuck Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Britannica still rules and is worth the money.