this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2024
533 points (98.0% liked)

World News

32511 readers
347 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Wikipedia has officially added “Gaza genocide” to its “List of Genocides” page, marking a major shift in how Israel’s aggression on the besieged enclave is being documented on the world’s largest online encyclopaedia.

The addition, which now appears as the first entry due to the list’s reverse chronological order, comes after months of extensive debate among the platform’s editors. On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”

The entry for “List of genocides,” Wikipedia states that “Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.” The page goes on to list the death toll in Gaza while mentioning that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians killed are civilians.

Archive link

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 140 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Not really. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate. The fact that it arrived at the right conclusion is a testament to Wikipedia's editorial policies.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

True. See WP:NOT and WP:CON for some idea of how this whole thing works.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate.

I think there's an important caveat here. Yes, it's not a democracy, but I don't think stirring up a fuss is as easy as citing various wiki editing policies and starting arguments. If you invoke them frivolously you aren't going to succeed at making edits.