10 ms·

Wikipedia row erupts as Jimmy Wales intervenes on 'Gaza genocide' page

72 points by lehi 11mo ago

angelgonzales 11mo ago
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I think Wikipedia would do really well for itself if it instead created a set of public high level rules for an open model to follow. The model would write the article using all publicly available information. This would enable the article to feature all perspectives on the issue to avoid “lying by omission”. Articles would instead be overviews and about a topic rather than appearing biased to a particular set of talking points and coverage. Summary is much more approachable and benefits people who want to learn all about a topic rather than those who seek confirmation reinforcement. I think the end result of this would be that people would be equally happy/unhappy with Wikipedia because the rules would be applied to every article equally and would be a place to go when users didn’t know what to prompt while apps like Grok/ChatGPT are resources used when people already have a question prepared. I agree with Jimmy’s opinion that Wikipedia is not a place to adjudicate disagreements.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > Wikipedia would do really well for itself if it instead created a set of public high level rules for an open model to follow This is literally every LLM that quotes Wikipedia. The value in Wikipedia is it’s curated. A model is the opposite of that. As for the topic at hand, it seems nobody agrees on what genocide means anymore, few are willing to accept there is legitimate disagreement, everyone has a unique definition they’re loudly committed to, all of which makes the entire debate self obsessed.
  - angelgonzales 11mo ago
    I don’t think curation is the answer, if Wikipedia was based off rules and if fundamental articles were dependencies to more complex downstream articles I think people would have more respect the site. Curation invites unintentional omission of information which people may suspect is intentional. If a Wikipedia model first defined rules for a genocide article and then screened events that were suspected to be genocides against the genocide article then a more uniform interpretation of genocide across the entire site would be possible. I think the goal for Wikipedia is to avoid inconsistency, to cover every viewpoint in a topic with rationale and to do so truthfully with associated references.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > if Wikipedia was based off rules and if fundamental articles were dependencies to more complex downstream articles I think people would have more respect the site These structured sources of truth have been tried. They don’t work. Natural language allows for ambiguity where necessary in a way code does not. > If a Wikipedia model first defined rules for a genocide article It would be worthless. Also, futile. You think when the world’s governments can’t agree on what genocide is, a random editorial decision at Wikipedia will control? > the goal for Wikipedia is to avoid inconsistency It’s a goal, but certainly not the goal. Truth isn’t a mathematical schema, particularly when it comes to social constructs like genocide.
      - angelgonzales 11mo ago
        I don’t think you’re entertaining the idea sufficiently considering you’ve stated that it’s a worthless and futile idea. I think it’s a worthwhile and valuable idea. Rules-derived articles with logical dependencies could hold a mirror to our own biases. I think truth should be logically derived and I don’t want people to be hostile to the outcomes since we’re approaching a future where technology will be able to do this.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
        JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > don’t think you’re entertaining the idea sufficiently considering you’ve stated that it’s a worthless and futile idea It’s useless and futile to this problem. It could be useful. But as a compliment to Wikipedia. And not in adjudicating something like the definition of genocide. > should be logically derived Not really an option for social constructs, which rely on consensus more than logical consistency. You could create LLMs that logically derive an answer from a definition. But that is a semantic punt with extra steps (unless the LLM controls martial forces).
    - undeveloper 11mo ago
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
skilled 11mo ago
This was not linked in the article, so here is what Jimmy wrote in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_f...
- Centigonal 11mo ago
  Reading the discussion, this appears to be an instance of the system working as intended. People are discussing Jimbo's message and weighing his position against the position of previous editors of the article, and they are weighing the merits and adherence to Wikipedia policy of each.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  Thank you for sharing that, turns out to be a lot more measured and balanced than the news article makes it out to be. Damn media always fueling the fires rather than spreading understanding and clarify. I think both sides seems to be raising good points, and probably the truth and more balanced view sits in the middle. I continued reading through the talk page and eventually come across this: > the United States government is exerting serious political pressure on Wikipedia as a whole to reveal the real life identities of many editors here who disagree with the current military actions of the government of Israel. I have not heard about this before, what specifically is this about, if it's true?
  - nsp 11mo ago
    It's a congressional inquiry, the claim is that the editors are biased against Israel. https://www.commondreams.org/news/house-gop-investigates-wikipedia https://www.commondreams.org/news/house-gop-investigates-wik...
    - embedding-shape 11mo ago
      > the editors are biased against Israel But so what? Is that unlawful in the US somehow today? That sounds absolutely bananas to be honest, aren't people supposed to have "true" freedom of speech, including being allowed to be biased against or for Israel?
jervant 11mo ago
From the headline, one might assume he directly edited or locked the page when he just commented on the article's discussion page that it should have a more neutral tone.
- mcphage 11mo ago
  > he just commented on the article's discussion page that it should have a more neutral tone He also said it in a '"high profile media interview about the article'.
- mmooss 11mo ago
  That understates the situation significantly. Wales posted a long comment under the headline, Statement from Jimbo Wales: This message is from me, Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia That's not just another comment; it's an official statement from the most powerful person on Wikipedia. Wales goes on to say, "As many of you will know, I have been leading an NPOV working group and studying the issue of neutrality in Wikipedia across many articles and topic areas including “Zionism”. While this article is a particularly egregious example, there is much more work to do." In other words, an official body is watching and studying what you are doing, and policy actions may follow. Finally, Wales does not accept any possibility that other points of view besides his own may be valid - not addressing many prior discussions. His belief is an assumed premise, and he demands ('asks') people to take actions on the basis of his beliefs. If you read the discussion, he continues that position. That doesn't make Wales wrong or right, but he didn't 'just comment ... that it should have a more neutral tone.'.
  - spwa4 11mo ago
    I don't understand how someone can make a claim like this in good faith. READ the page on the Gaza genocide. I'll give you the link again. READ it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide This page represents ONE viewpoint and, read the "Talk" page, strongly fights against that any other viewpoint is represented at all. That, by itself, is directly against the stated goals and policy of wikipedia. A page is to have a short description of the subject, and then immediately delve into the different viewpoints on the subject. This page, and this is putting it mildly, does not acknowledge any viewpoint other than it's own even exists (and then gives endless reasons, pages of justification, for why it's viewpoint is supposedly reasonable, but without any mention of any other viewpoint. This page is a mad rant, not a serious wikipedia entry) Wikipedia's EXPLICIT goal is to show the different viewpoints on any issue, to the point that there's many long articles on "exceptions" (like why the Flat-Earth theory is not mentioned on the earth entry) And this page has A LOT of very worrying statements that can also be characterized as extremist. For example, the article ends with a statement that this gaza genocide pre-emptively justifies massacres against US civilians (yes, really, US civilians) "in a hypothetical future war between the US and a peer power such as China". Seriously? Who has this viewpoint? And then there is just WHAT viewpoint this page puts forth ... This can only be described as an extremist viewpoint, even for the gaza = genocide camp. Do any reasonable people actually have this viewpoint? Every part of it is presented with zero mention of any disagreement at all, which in my experience is absolutely not true. 1) there was a genocide against innocents in Gaza (not a war against hamas, that is not mentioned at all), that what happens in Gaza, which in reality is of course firefights between 2 military groupings, is comparable to what happened in nazi death camps ... (in fact I would argue that this page, for this comparison and other reasons, is extremely racist) 2) (directly copies hamas' viewpoint) that there are no combatants in gaza at all. In fact there is NO offensive or defensive action by any palestinian mentioned as far as I can tell. 3) (directly copies hamas' viewpoint) that to there is no hamas use of hospitals as weapons (even against their own people), their use for imprisoning hostages and as rocket launch sites, and so on 4) (directly copies hamas' viewpoint) in reporting casualty figures 5) there is ONE side mention of the other side of the conflict, and how it started: with a genocide ... by Palestinians. Despite several of the references being titled "October 7 ..." there is no mention of what happened on October 7 other than a single word: "attacks". And even that did not happen without a fight (see the talk page) (despite the obvious remark one can make: what hamas and random Palestinians did on Oct 7 2023 satisfies the definition of genocide. They emptied 2 fully automatic rifles in a kindergarten classroom because the kids were Jews. And like with all such racist acts, of course, turns out 2 of the kids (the black ones) weren't even Jews. You would think that an article that devotes ~1 page to the "extensive targeting of children" would find a sentence to mention this) 6) That EVERYONE (not just Israel) is responsible for this, US, the Netherlands, ... not just countries either. Facebook is responsible for this. Bank of America. Exxon Mobil. BNP Paribas (a Belgian bank) ... (Except, of course, Palestinians. The attack on October 7 has nothing to do with this conflict. Nothing whatsoever ...) I must say, I don't understand how this viewpoint can make it to that page. This is, even for the "Gaza genocide" camp, an absurd and extremist viewpoint. Additionally, it is extremely racist. And after all that this long and absurd rant of a wikipedia page, ends by "justifying" that China should go on a massacre against civilians in the US. Can we please agree there are serious problems here?
jalapenof 11mo ago
[flagged]
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  [flagged]
ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
[flagged]
- daliusd 11mo ago
  Your comment goes against HN Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . That's it.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
    Could you please specify which guideline?
- n1b0m 11mo ago
  Highly contested by the people committing the genocide, while Jewish figures from across the world are calling for Israel to be sanctioned [1] [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/22/jewish-notables-open-letter-un-sanction-israel https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/22/jewish-notable...
- viccis 11mo ago
  Exactly. There's another 20th century genocide that is "highly contested" in specific odious circles, but there's no reason to present that opposing viewpoint in an encyclopedic treatment of it, given mounds of evidence of intent and outcomes for both.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
    Yes, the Holocaust is also "highly contested".
    - viccis 11mo ago
      I was referring to the Armenian genocide, whose primary perpetrator refuses to acknowledge it, with the support of Western governments.
puppycodes 11mo ago
Seems pretty important to require a neutral tone regardless of how egregious the acts are described in the entry. This is what makes Wikipedia good.
- fumeux_fume 11mo ago
  I think that goes without saying. The real question is what's the line between neutrality and letting a vocal minority dictate editorial decisions? Especially when the vocal minority has biased incentives towards making those changes.
- thrance 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mieses 11mo ago
    Is it true that "trust a majority" is a "good"? Or just the opinion of the majority?
    - croon 11mo ago
      If it's a majority of topic experts, I think it is. I work with many (might even include myself) and we disagree constantly. If we do agree on something, I'm fairly confident it's accurate and trustworthy.
    - thrance 11mo ago
      You can read their arguments on the discussion page; don't act like this is just an appeal to authority.
- undeveloper 11mo ago
  > Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?”
ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
> Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?” LOL
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
  People are dense. If there aren't any high quality sources on mRNA turbo cancer then you don't need to lower your standards to include it.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
    Yeah but in this case what's a high quality source for "Israel isn't actually commiting genocide"? Israeli government representatives? Why are they high quality, because they went to prestigious universities and have real power? Not trolling, serious question.
    - dlubarov 11mo ago
      There are a number of them mentioned on Wikipedia itself [1]. I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a source given all the anti-Israel bias lately, but that particular section seems okay-ish for now and I'm not aware of a better list. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_to_the_Gaza_genocide#Legal_assessments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_t...
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
trhway 11mo ago
[flagged]
- viccis 11mo ago
  Hamas carried out executions of a few dozen ranking members of opposition groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government. This is not a "genocide"
  - trhway 11mo ago
    We saw what HAMAS does - all the video from Oct 7 - and we have to believe that same HAMAS abuot some mythical "groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government"
    - viccis 11mo ago
      Hamas is not an acronym, it's "Hamas" not "HAMAS" >We saw what HAMAS [sic] does - all the video from Oct 7 Not relevant to this topic, nor is it true (there's no video from Oct 7 that has any bearing on this) >and we have to believe that same HAMAS [sic] abuot some mythical "groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government" You actually don't. Yasser Abu Shabab is an example of one of them who has his own Wikipedia page, along with one for his gang (Popular Forces). The latter has 5 citations for the fact that his group is both Israeli backed and linked to ISIS. For example, see [1]. These Israeli backed groups have been responsible for murders of civilians such as Saleh al-Jafarawi, as well as attacks on Hamas soldiers, which is why Hamas executed them for collaboration. I would recommend you do a bit more research, as it's not a good sign if your propaganda is easily shown to be false with CNN links. 1: https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/middleeast/israel-arming-hamas-rivals-gaza-intl https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/middleeast/israel-arming-hama...
      - trhway 11mo ago
bsimpson 11mo ago
[flagged]
- th0ma5 11mo ago
  Do you have a source for those allegations about their funding?
  - xnx 11mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...
    - th0ma5 11mo ago
      Which part of this substantiates that description?
- legitster 11mo ago
  The money is going into an endowment, not funding random political activities. The point of an endowment is to eventually have enough money to live off of the interest forever (which is tough if the organization like Wikimedia keeps growing). They actually make more money every year from the interest on their endowment than they do from donations at this point. (All the more argument that they should be knocking off the massive nags though)
mrguyorama 11mo ago
Jimmy Wales does what? From the very article itself: > Others said that Wales did not have control over Wikipedia, and was only an editor like anyone else, but had been “trying to pull an authority-based argument while promoting a book”. >“I'm not sure Jimbo's plea needs to be entertained much beyond demonstrating that current consensus is something different than what he thinks it should be,” one user said. Wikipedia editors do not actually consider Jim to be an authority on the matter. They ask him to substantiate his claim that the "Gaza genocide" article is not "neutral" in voice. They don't really seem to care about what he thinks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy The page is currently only protected until November 4th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrato... Wikipedia has over 400 active accounts who can turn on article protection. They include such diverse people as current CS professors and someone who wants you to know on their page that soccer is more important than life and death, and a person who's personal page opens with a picture of their feet. In fact, the Jimbo Wales account is not currently an administrator. Jimmy could not have locked the article. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of those accounts spend more time and effort espousing wiki editing philosophy than any other topic.
- jacquesm 11mo ago
  When I look through those Wikipedia talk pages what always strikes me is that it is as if a whole raft of not-so-smart people have finally found something they can be experts on. These then use their own developed lingo and the fact that they have more time and expertise about WP than their usually smarter and better informed subject expert counter party to bludgeon them with all kinds of mumbo-jimbo to the point of abandoning the issue altogether. The really sad thing is that this still produces an encylopedia that is better than anything that you could have paid money for.
  - chihuahua 11mo ago
    I think it has been discussed a few times that Wikipedia is a place where various kinds of zealots, fanatics, and obsessives can go and play a variant of the game of Diplomacy. This tends to drive away normal people who have subject matter knowledge, but are not interested in investing their time in long political campaigns over Wikipedia rules and power struggles. It seems this happens in many places where the opportunity presents itself. StackOverflow seems to suffer from a similar (not identical) issue.
throw7 11mo ago
Sounds like Wikipedia is turning into reddit.
orwin 11mo ago
"erupts". They have a rowdy argumented discussion, no ad hominem that i found? To me it look like a very civil discussion on the internet.
lgvln 11mo ago
It should be said that he is not advocating for a “we need to hear both sides” sort of disingenuous argument common among right wing rhetoric but a sense of balanced intellectual humility (even if I believe the behavior and evidence strongly supports the view that Israel is aiming for something akin to genocide) - whether this is a hill he (Wales) should dying on is also another matter.
tetrisgm 11mo ago
This is very likely character assassination. Wikipedia has been targeted lately as part of a marketing effort for grokipedia. I recommend taking this as a grain of salt.
- Gigachad 11mo ago
  Also feel like Wikipedia was never the go to platform for unfolding situations.
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    Almost built against serving that specific need, and trying to avoid it as much as they can, one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_dust_settle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_dust_settle
  - UtopiaPunk 11mo ago
    I know this issue is top-of-mind in the public discourse now, but the issue of Israel/Palestine has been ongoing for decades at this point.
    - AlecSchueler 11mo ago
      The broader conflict yes but not the current programme.
- shermozle 11mo ago
  Go read the Grokipedia article about the Gaza genocide if you want a laugh. The first sentence is 83 words with multiple nested clauses. It's gibberish.
  - tetrisgm 11mo ago
    I agree. Wikipedia is not for debate though. It’s good at settled facts.
bArray 11mo ago
I mostly agree with Jimmy's statement [1] which is far more neutral than this article. I have concerns, though. It is difficult to find good sources without a large political bent. If we look at the following article "Casualties of the Gaza war" [2]. If you read link (108) you see a Guardian article "Revealed: Israeli military’s own data indicates civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza war" [3], which says: > Fighters named in the Israeli military intelligence database accounted for just 17% of the total, which indicates that 83% of the dead were civilians. See how the language in the article itself walks back the strong claim. The argument made is that all persons not in the Israeli military intelligence database are automatically civilians. If there was a similar Israeli database of confirmed non-combatants, and this only contained 17% of the people who have died, would this mean that the remaining 83% were military? Of course not. And this all assumes that these databases are actually accurate. Then we must ask ourselves, how are the number of deaths in total calculated? How do we know that each death is attributed to Israeli actions? How many deaths are due to direct action and secondary action (i.e. illness, dehydration, starvation)? When we look back at any conflict in history, we see the inflated deaths of civilians, the deflated number of military persons killed - it's propaganda. How much of what we currently see is propaganda? I think we need to think extremely carefully and consider all possibilities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_f... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20250821135825/https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war https://web.archive.org/web/20250821135825/https://www.thegu...
- mmooss 11mo ago
  Often when people talk about bias, they assume it must be bias against their interests. They don't realize that, if there is room for bias, it's just as easily bias in their favor. The article could overstate either side - or both at different times. > When we look back at any conflict in history, we see the inflated deaths of civilians, the deflated number of military persons killed - it's propaganda. That's false. In each event, one side tends to inflate claims like civilian deaths and the other tends to minimize them.
thrance 11mo ago
This is how the "Wikipedia Row" "Erupted" at Jimmy Wales: > It is a bad faith read of the community when suggesting that among the most read and debated articles on the community is poorly done. there has been dozens of hours of discussion and rfcs galore to reach this version of the article and im certain there will be more. Consensus is always evolving but this article represents the latest consensus. Seems very reasonable to me.
- dlubarov 11mo ago
  Ultimately it's a numbers game, and editors with an anti-Israeli agenda have the numbers. Jimbo's post reads as if he's encouraging chances so that the article adheres to NPOV, but I think he understands that's rather futile, and is really just trying to draw attention so that more readers will be aware of Wikipedia's biases.
  - bluebarbet 11mo ago
    While obviously you're right that in practice "it's a numbers game", it shouldn't be. That's the point.
grammarxcore 11mo ago
Surprisingly I don’t see Wales commenting on the Armenian Genocide talk page. I don’t see the difference between the two. What am I missing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide
- kurtis_reed 11mo ago
  There are vast differences
- tim333 11mo ago
  The Armenian genocide killed approx 1 million out of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey in an attempt to wipe them out which is kind of where the term genocide originated. I don't think the Armenians attacked the Turks or took hostages or anything like that. In Gaza maybe 3% of the population has been killed, partly as a side effect to fighting back against Hamas after they attacked and took hostages. I guess it depends how you define the terms. Maybe we need some new term for trying to wipe out a people as opposed to causing casualties in war against people who attacked you?
_DeadFred_ 11mo ago
Would be cool if Sudan was also on people's minds. The UN is currently giving the 400,000 refugees there 1/3 the calories that Gaza was receiving when it was considered starving Gaza.
- computerthings 11mo ago
  [dead]
incomingpain 11mo ago
[flagged]

72 points by lehi 11mo ago

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I think Wikipedia would do really well for itself if it instead created a set of public high level rules for an open model to follow. The model would write the article using all publicly available information. This would enable the article to feature all perspectives on the issue to avoid “lying by omission”. Articles would instead be overviews and about a topic rather than appearing biased to a particular set of talking points and coverage. Summary is much more approachable and benefits people who want to learn all about a topic rather than those who seek confirmation reinforcement. I think the end result of this would be that people would be equally happy/unhappy with Wikipedia because the rules would be applied to every article equally and would be a place to go when users didn’t know what to prompt while apps like Grok/ChatGPT are resources used when people already have a question prepared. I agree with Jimmy’s opinion that Wikipedia is not a place to adjudicate disagreements.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> Wikipedia would do really well for itself if it instead created a set of public high level rules for an open model to follow This is literally every LLM that quotes Wikipedia. The value in Wikipedia is it’s curated. A model is the opposite of that. As for the topic at hand, it seems nobody agrees on what genocide means anymore, few are willing to accept there is legitimate disagreement, everyone has a unique definition they’re loudly committed to, all of which makes the entire debate self obsessed.
- angelgonzales 11mo ago
  I don’t think curation is the answer, if Wikipedia was based off rules and if fundamental articles were dependencies to more complex downstream articles I think people would have more respect the site. Curation invites unintentional omission of information which people may suspect is intentional. If a Wikipedia model first defined rules for a genocide article and then screened events that were suspected to be genocides against the genocide article then a more uniform interpretation of genocide across the entire site would be possible. I think the goal for Wikipedia is to avoid inconsistency, to cover every viewpoint in a topic with rationale and to do so truthfully with associated references.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > if Wikipedia was based off rules and if fundamental articles were dependencies to more complex downstream articles I think people would have more respect the site These structured sources of truth have been tried. They don’t work. Natural language allows for ambiguity where necessary in a way code does not. > If a Wikipedia model first defined rules for a genocide article It would be worthless. Also, futile. You think when the world’s governments can’t agree on what genocide is, a random editorial decision at Wikipedia will control? > the goal for Wikipedia is to avoid inconsistency It’s a goal, but certainly not the goal. Truth isn’t a mathematical schema, particularly when it comes to social constructs like genocide.
    - angelgonzales 11mo ago
      I don’t think you’re entertaining the idea sufficiently considering you’ve stated that it’s a worthless and futile idea. I think it’s a worthwhile and valuable idea. Rules-derived articles with logical dependencies could hold a mirror to our own biases. I think truth should be logically derived and I don’t want people to be hostile to the outcomes since we’re approaching a future where technology will be able to do this.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
      - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > don’t think you’re entertaining the idea sufficiently considering you’ve stated that it’s a worthless and futile idea It’s useless and futile to this problem. It could be useful. But as a compliment to Wikipedia. And not in adjudicating something like the definition of genocide. > should be logically derived Not really an option for social constructs, which rely on consensus more than logical consistency. You could create LLMs that logically derive an answer from a definition. But that is a semantic punt with extra steps (unless the LLM controls martial forces).
  - undeveloper 11mo ago
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]

skilled 11mo ago

This was not linked in the article, so here is what Jimmy wrote in the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_f...

Centigonal 11mo ago
Reading the discussion, this appears to be an instance of the system working as intended. People are discussing Jimbo's message and weighing his position against the position of previous editors of the article, and they are weighing the merits and adherence to Wikipedia policy of each.
embedding-shape 11mo ago
Thank you for sharing that, turns out to be a lot more measured and balanced than the news article makes it out to be. Damn media always fueling the fires rather than spreading understanding and clarify. I think both sides seems to be raising good points, and probably the truth and more balanced view sits in the middle. I continued reading through the talk page and eventually come across this: > the United States government is exerting serious political pressure on Wikipedia as a whole to reveal the real life identities of many editors here who disagree with the current military actions of the government of Israel. I have not heard about this before, what specifically is this about, if it's true?
- nsp 11mo ago
  It's a congressional inquiry, the claim is that the editors are biased against Israel. https://www.commondreams.org/news/house-gop-investigates-wikipedia https://www.commondreams.org/news/house-gop-investigates-wik...
  - embedding-shape 11mo ago
    > the editors are biased against Israel But so what? Is that unlawful in the US somehow today? That sounds absolutely bananas to be honest, aren't people supposed to have "true" freedom of speech, including being allowed to be biased against or for Israel?

jervant 11mo ago

From the headline, one might assume he directly edited or locked the page when he just commented on the article's discussion page that it should have a more neutral tone.

mcphage 11mo ago
> he just commented on the article's discussion page that it should have a more neutral tone He also said it in a '"high profile media interview about the article'.
mmooss 11mo ago
That understates the situation significantly. Wales posted a long comment under the headline, Statement from Jimbo Wales: This message is from me, Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia That's not just another comment; it's an official statement from the most powerful person on Wikipedia. Wales goes on to say, "As many of you will know, I have been leading an NPOV working group and studying the issue of neutrality in Wikipedia across many articles and topic areas including “Zionism”. While this article is a particularly egregious example, there is much more work to do." In other words, an official body is watching and studying what you are doing, and policy actions may follow. Finally, Wales does not accept any possibility that other points of view besides his own may be valid - not addressing many prior discussions. His belief is an assumed premise, and he demands ('asks') people to take actions on the basis of his beliefs. If you read the discussion, he continues that position. That doesn't make Wales wrong or right, but he didn't 'just comment ... that it should have a more neutral tone.'.
- spwa4 11mo ago
  I don't understand how someone can make a claim like this in good faith. READ the page on the Gaza genocide. I'll give you the link again. READ it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide This page represents ONE viewpoint and, read the "Talk" page, strongly fights against that any other viewpoint is represented at all. That, by itself, is directly against the stated goals and policy of wikipedia. A page is to have a short description of the subject, and then immediately delve into the different viewpoints on the subject. This page, and this is putting it mildly, does not acknowledge any viewpoint other than it's own even exists (and then gives endless reasons, pages of justification, for why it's viewpoint is supposedly reasonable, but without any mention of any other viewpoint. This page is a mad rant, not a serious wikipedia entry) Wikipedia's EXPLICIT goal is to show the different viewpoints on any issue, to the point that there's many long articles on "exceptions" (like why the Flat-Earth theory is not mentioned on the earth entry) And this page has A LOT of very worrying statements that can also be characterized as extremist. For example, the article ends with a statement that this gaza genocide pre-emptively justifies massacres against US civilians (yes, really, US civilians) "in a hypothetical future war between the US and a peer power such as China". Seriously? Who has this viewpoint? And then there is just WHAT viewpoint this page puts forth ... This can only be described as an extremist viewpoint, even for the gaza = genocide camp. Do any reasonable people actually have this viewpoint? Every part of it is presented with zero mention of any disagreement at all, which in my experience is absolutely not true. 1) there was a genocide against innocents in Gaza (not a war against hamas, that is not mentioned at all), that what happens in Gaza, which in reality is of course firefights between 2 military groupings, is comparable to what happened in nazi death camps ... (in fact I would argue that this page, for this comparison and other reasons, is extremely racist) 2) (directly copies hamas' viewpoint) that there are no combatants in gaza at all. In fact there is NO offensive or defensive action by any palestinian mentioned as far as I can tell. 3) (directly copies hamas' viewpoint) that to there is no hamas use of hospitals as weapons (even against their own people), their use for imprisoning hostages and as rocket launch sites, and so on 4) (directly copies hamas' viewpoint) in reporting casualty figures 5) there is ONE side mention of the other side of the conflict, and how it started: with a genocide ... by Palestinians. Despite several of the references being titled "October 7 ..." there is no mention of what happened on October 7 other than a single word: "attacks". And even that did not happen without a fight (see the talk page) (despite the obvious remark one can make: what hamas and random Palestinians did on Oct 7 2023 satisfies the definition of genocide. They emptied 2 fully automatic rifles in a kindergarten classroom because the kids were Jews. And like with all such racist acts, of course, turns out 2 of the kids (the black ones) weren't even Jews. You would think that an article that devotes ~1 page to the "extensive targeting of children" would find a sentence to mention this) 6) That EVERYONE (not just Israel) is responsible for this, US, the Netherlands, ... not just countries either. Facebook is responsible for this. Bank of America. Exxon Mobil. BNP Paribas (a Belgian bank) ... (Except, of course, Palestinians. The attack on October 7 has nothing to do with this conflict. Nothing whatsoever ...) I must say, I don't understand how this viewpoint can make it to that page. This is, even for the "Gaza genocide" camp, an absurd and extremist viewpoint. Additionally, it is extremely racist. And after all that this long and absurd rant of a wikipedia page, ends by "justifying" that China should go on a massacre against civilians in the US. Can we please agree there are serious problems here?

jalapenof 11mo ago

[flagged]

ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
[flagged]

ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago

[flagged]

daliusd 11mo ago
Your comment goes against HN Guidelines https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html . That's it.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  Could you please specify which guideline?
n1b0m 11mo ago
Highly contested by the people committing the genocide, while Jewish figures from across the world are calling for Israel to be sanctioned [1] [1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/22/jewish-notables-open-letter-un-sanction-israel https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/22/jewish-notable...
viccis 11mo ago
Exactly. There's another 20th century genocide that is "highly contested" in specific odious circles, but there's no reason to present that opposing viewpoint in an encyclopedic treatment of it, given mounds of evidence of intent and outcomes for both.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  Yes, the Holocaust is also "highly contested".
  - viccis 11mo ago
    I was referring to the Armenian genocide, whose primary perpetrator refuses to acknowledge it, with the support of Western governments.

puppycodes 11mo ago

Seems pretty important to require a neutral tone regardless of how egregious the acts are described in the entry. This is what makes Wikipedia good.

fumeux_fume 11mo ago
I think that goes without saying. The real question is what's the line between neutrality and letting a vocal minority dictate editorial decisions? Especially when the vocal minority has biased incentives towards making those changes.
thrance 11mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- mieses 11mo ago
  Is it true that "trust a majority" is a "good"? Or just the opinion of the majority?
  - croon 11mo ago
    If it's a majority of topic experts, I think it is. I work with many (might even include myself) and we disagree constantly. If we do agree on something, I'm fairly confident it's accurate and trustworthy.
  - thrance 11mo ago
    You can read their arguments on the discussion page; don't act like this is just an appeal to authority.
undeveloper 11mo ago
> Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?”

ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago

> Another editor responded: “There's also an ‘ongoing controversy’ over whether mRNA vaccines cause ‘turbo cancer’ and whether [Donald] Trump actually won the 2020 Presidential election. Do you want us to be [bold] and go edit those articles as well?” LOL

2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
People are dense. If there aren't any high quality sources on mRNA turbo cancer then you don't need to lower your standards to include it.
- ekjhgkejhgk 11mo ago
  Yeah but in this case what's a high quality source for "Israel isn't actually commiting genocide"? Israeli government representatives? Why are they high quality, because they went to prestigious universities and have real power? Not trolling, serious question.
  - dlubarov 11mo ago
    There are a number of them mentioned on Wikipedia itself [1]. I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a source given all the anti-Israel bias lately, but that particular section seems okay-ish for now and I'm not aware of a better list. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_to_the_Gaza_genocide#Legal_assessments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_and_legal_responses_t...
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]

trhway 11mo ago

[flagged]

viccis 11mo ago
Hamas carried out executions of a few dozen ranking members of opposition groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government. This is not a "genocide"
- trhway 11mo ago
  We saw what HAMAS does - all the video from Oct 7 - and we have to believe that same HAMAS abuot some mythical "groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government"
  - viccis 11mo ago
    Hamas is not an acronym, it's "Hamas" not "HAMAS" >We saw what HAMAS [sic] does - all the video from Oct 7 Not relevant to this topic, nor is it true (there's no video from Oct 7 that has any bearing on this) >and we have to believe that same HAMAS [sic] abuot some mythical "groups that had been carrying out attacks and aid banditry against civilians, at the behest of and with the funding of the Israeli government" You actually don't. Yasser Abu Shabab is an example of one of them who has his own Wikipedia page, along with one for his gang (Popular Forces). The latter has 5 citations for the fact that his group is both Israeli backed and linked to ISIS. For example, see [1]. These Israeli backed groups have been responsible for murders of civilians such as Saleh al-Jafarawi, as well as attacks on Hamas soldiers, which is why Hamas executed them for collaboration. I would recommend you do a bit more research, as it's not a good sign if your propaganda is easily shown to be false with CNN links. 1: https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/middleeast/israel-arming-hamas-rivals-gaza-intl https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/06/middleeast/israel-arming-hama...
    - trhway 11mo ago

bsimpson 11mo ago

[flagged]

th0ma5 11mo ago
Do you have a source for those allegations about their funding?
- xnx 11mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statistics#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising_statisti...
  - th0ma5 11mo ago
    Which part of this substantiates that description?
legitster 11mo ago
The money is going into an endowment, not funding random political activities. The point of an endowment is to eventually have enough money to live off of the interest forever (which is tough if the organization like Wikimedia keeps growing). They actually make more money every year from the interest on their endowment than they do from donations at this point. (All the more argument that they should be knocking off the massive nags though)

mrguyorama 11mo ago

Jimmy Wales does what? From the very article itself: > Others said that Wales did not have control over Wikipedia, and was only an editor like anyone else, but had been “trying to pull an authority-based argument while promoting a book”. >“I'm not sure Jimbo's plea needs to be entertained much beyond demonstrating that current consensus is something different than what he thinks it should be,” one user said. Wikipedia editors do not actually consider Jim to be an authority on the matter. They ask him to substantiate his claim that the "Gaza genocide" article is not "neutral" in voice. They don't really seem to care about what he thinks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy The page is currently only protected until November 4th. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrators https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_administrato... Wikipedia has over 400 active accounts who can turn on article protection. They include such diverse people as current CS professors and someone who wants you to know on their page that soccer is more important than life and death, and a person who's personal page opens with a picture of their feet. In fact, the Jimbo Wales account is not currently an administrator. Jimmy could not have locked the article. Unsurprisingly, the vast majority of those accounts spend more time and effort espousing wiki editing philosophy than any other topic.

jacquesm 11mo ago
When I look through those Wikipedia talk pages what always strikes me is that it is as if a whole raft of not-so-smart people have finally found something they can be experts on. These then use their own developed lingo and the fact that they have more time and expertise about WP than their usually smarter and better informed subject expert counter party to bludgeon them with all kinds of mumbo-jimbo to the point of abandoning the issue altogether. The really sad thing is that this still produces an encylopedia that is better than anything that you could have paid money for.
- chihuahua 11mo ago
  I think it has been discussed a few times that Wikipedia is a place where various kinds of zealots, fanatics, and obsessives can go and play a variant of the game of Diplomacy. This tends to drive away normal people who have subject matter knowledge, but are not interested in investing their time in long political campaigns over Wikipedia rules and power struggles. It seems this happens in many places where the opportunity presents itself. StackOverflow seems to suffer from a similar (not identical) issue.

throw7 11mo ago

Sounds like Wikipedia is turning into reddit.

orwin 11mo ago

"erupts". They have a rowdy argumented discussion, no ad hominem that i found? To me it look like a very civil discussion on the internet.

lgvln 11mo ago

It should be said that he is not advocating for a “we need to hear both sides” sort of disingenuous argument common among right wing rhetoric but a sense of balanced intellectual humility (even if I believe the behavior and evidence strongly supports the view that Israel is aiming for something akin to genocide) - whether this is a hill he (Wales) should dying on is also another matter.

tetrisgm 11mo ago

This is very likely character assassination. Wikipedia has been targeted lately as part of a marketing effort for grokipedia. I recommend taking this as a grain of salt.

Gigachad 11mo ago
Also feel like Wikipedia was never the go to platform for unfolding situations.
- embedding-shape 11mo ago
  Almost built against serving that specific need, and trying to avoid it as much as they can, one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_dust_settle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Let_the_dust_settle
- UtopiaPunk 11mo ago
  I know this issue is top-of-mind in the public discourse now, but the issue of Israel/Palestine has been ongoing for decades at this point.
  - AlecSchueler 11mo ago
    The broader conflict yes but not the current programme.
shermozle 11mo ago
Go read the Grokipedia article about the Gaza genocide if you want a laugh. The first sentence is 83 words with multiple nested clauses. It's gibberish.
- tetrisgm 11mo ago
  I agree. Wikipedia is not for debate though. It’s good at settled facts.

bArray 11mo ago

I mostly agree with Jimmy's statement [1] which is far more neutral than this article. I have concerns, though. It is difficult to find good sources without a large political bent. If we look at the following article "Casualties of the Gaza war" [2]. If you read link (108) you see a Guardian article "Revealed: Israeli military’s own data indicates civilian death rate of 83% in Gaza war" [3], which says: > Fighters named in the Israeli military intelligence database accounted for just 17% of the total, which indicates that 83% of the dead were civilians. See how the language in the article itself walks back the strong claim. The argument made is that all persons not in the Israeli military intelligence database are automatically civilians. If there was a similar Israeli database of confirmed non-combatants, and this only contained 17% of the people who have died, would this mean that the remaining 83% were military? Of course not. And this all assumes that these databases are actually accurate. Then we must ask ourselves, how are the number of deaths in total calculated? How do we know that each death is attributed to Israeli actions? How many deaths are due to direct action and secondary action (i.e. illness, dehydration, starvation)? When we look back at any conflict in history, we see the inflated deaths of civilians, the deflated number of military persons killed - it's propaganda. How much of what we currently see is propaganda? I think we need to think extremely carefully and consider all possibilities. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_from_Jimbo_Wales https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide#Statement_f... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Gaza_war [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20250821135825/https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/aug/21/revealed-israeli-militarys-own-data-indicates-civilian-death-rate-of-83-in-gaza-war https://web.archive.org/web/20250821135825/https://www.thegu...

mmooss 11mo ago
Often when people talk about bias, they assume it must be bias against their interests. They don't realize that, if there is room for bias, it's just as easily bias in their favor. The article could overstate either side - or both at different times. > When we look back at any conflict in history, we see the inflated deaths of civilians, the deflated number of military persons killed - it's propaganda. That's false. In each event, one side tends to inflate claims like civilian deaths and the other tends to minimize them.

thrance 11mo ago

This is how the "Wikipedia Row" "Erupted" at Jimmy Wales: > It is a bad faith read of the community when suggesting that among the most read and debated articles on the community is poorly done. there has been dozens of hours of discussion and rfcs galore to reach this version of the article and im certain there will be more. Consensus is always evolving but this article represents the latest consensus. Seems very reasonable to me.

dlubarov 11mo ago
Ultimately it's a numbers game, and editors with an anti-Israeli agenda have the numbers. Jimbo's post reads as if he's encouraging chances so that the article adheres to NPOV, but I think he understands that's rather futile, and is really just trying to draw attention so that more readers will be aware of Wikipedia's biases.
- bluebarbet 11mo ago
  While obviously you're right that in practice "it's a numbers game", it shouldn't be. That's the point.

grammarxcore 11mo ago

Surprisingly I don’t see Wales commenting on the Armenian Genocide talk page. I don’t see the difference between the two. What am I missing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

kurtis_reed 11mo ago
There are vast differences
tim333 11mo ago
The Armenian genocide killed approx 1 million out of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey in an attempt to wipe them out which is kind of where the term genocide originated. I don't think the Armenians attacked the Turks or took hostages or anything like that. In Gaza maybe 3% of the population has been killed, partly as a side effect to fighting back against Hamas after they attacked and took hostages. I guess it depends how you define the terms. Maybe we need some new term for trying to wipe out a people as opposed to causing casualties in war against people who attacked you?

_DeadFred_ 11mo ago

Would be cool if Sudan was also on people's minds. The UN is currently giving the 400,000 refugees there 1/3 the calories that Gaza was receiving when it was considered starving Gaza.

computerthings 11mo ago
[dead]

incomingpain 11mo ago

[flagged]