4mo ago

CNN and MSNBC are finally paying serious attentions to Wikipedia's problems

CNN: The ADL says Wikipedia contains antisemitic bias, amid dispute over how the Israel-Hamas conflict is represented on the site
MSNBC: Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish bias undermines Wikipedia's neutrality, says ADL report

Regardless of your standing with regards to the Israel-Palestine war, this is an unexpected development as now legacy networks are finally paying serious attention to criticisms of Wikipedia after years of neglect.

Any observers who've been following Wikipedia-related rabbit holes long enough would know that criticism of Wikipedia is for a long time dominated by the political fringes (i.e. far-right) and many Wikipedia critics normally gets ridiculed out of the room as they're been characterized as "fascists" and "anti-knowledge". Now it's like a dream come true for those critics as they seemingly get vindicated on television networks.

16 comments

CNN...
Owned by conservative billionaires who said their goal is to emulate Faux News...
Gee, why would conservative billionaires be against free and available information to the masses?
- Perfect sometimes is the enemy of good. At least the issues on Wikipedia are finally being taken seriously after years of neglect.
  Gee, why would conservative billionaires be against free and available information to the masses?
  This is a false dichotomy pigeonholing fallacy. Many critics do support Wikipedia as a concept, however they are pissed off by how toxic editors have captured the levers of power on Wikipedia and corrupted it. It's probably better for the knowledge market to consist of multiple platform instead of a single, suffocating monopoly, and there are already real efforts in addressing it, such as ibis.wiki.
  Cory Doctorow's thesis on enshittification fits right in this case.
  
  You understand that your links are saying Wikipedia is going to easy on Israel for their genocide against the native inhabitants of that land....
  Right?
  Like, that is what you're presenting as a long overdue thing...
  Has that been the reason you hate Wikipedia this whole time, they're too honest about genocide?
  
  I'm sorry, but this is an extremely naive take with absolutely no nuance whatsoever.
  
  Yeah, it's incredibly important that resources like Wikipedia remain neutral. I'm glad more people are paying attention to this now.
- Re: the "Early Life" section, we actually have a guideline about that. Discussion of the subject's religion is allowed only under specific circumstances, namely when "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Unlike Christianity, which is far and away the prevailing religion in the US, religious minorities like Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. are more likely to receive coverage of said religion because it stands out more (for example, Eight Crazy Nights by Adam Sandler is way more noteworthy than some Christian director making a by-the-books Christmas film; religious minorities are more likely to talk at length about how their difference in religion impacts their work and identity; etc.) This is also why you're more likely to see a mention that an individual is gay, trans, etc. than "Jimmy Carter was cis and straight."
  For example, Natalie Portman is frequently interviewed about subjects like her Jewish heritage, and her 'Early life' section brings up her Jewish heritage. Penn Jillette frequently advocates for atheism, and his 'Early life' page talks about how he became an atheist in his early teens. Mehmet Oz ("Dr. Oz") has talked about his Muslim faith in the past and was the first Muslim ever nominated by the GOP for the US Senate, so his 'Early life' section brings up Islam.
  TL;DR: This happens on articles about famous people who are Jewish at a far higher rate than it happens with Christians (at least ones in the US and other areas where Christianity is the dominant religion), but 1) it happens for a reason within guidelines, 2) for that reason, you're always welcome to challenge that it falls within those guidelines, and 3) as you note, the same thing happens with other religious minorities.
Citing the ADL immediately loses you all credibility.
MSNBC and CNN literal garbage heaps that have slowly eroded what news is so that as they approach Fox levels of depraved billionaire bootlicking no one will notice.
The ADL is fully composed of Semitic bias so they're not exactly more desirable if everyone's gonna throw around the B-word

16 comments