Wikipedia editors/whatever agreed that it was an “unreliable source”, because it pushed linking pro-Palestinian protests with antisemitism, and such like.
Basically you can’t use the ADL as a source for Wikipedia articles. It’s also a big broader than just the conflict- it would appear you wouldn’t be able to cite them on, say, page discussing antisemitism, or similar things. (Basically everything the ADL might be interested in.)
Examples of articles using ADL as a source: thisthisthis and this
Check my explanation and in particular the link I gave, it explains a little bit more. The OP article is just a little confused about how Wikipedia works. Actually, down near the bottom, they get a lot bit closer to how it works:
By deeming the ADL “generally unreliable,” Wikipedia is telling users that “the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.” Wikipedia is not poised ban the ADL outright; enough editors have argued that some aspects of the ADL’s work, such as its database of hate symbols, should still be considered an acceptable source.
That’s actually a lot closer to what happened than is the headline or the early part of the article.
Wikipedia editors/whatever agreed that it was an “unreliable source”, because it pushed linking pro-Palestinian protests with antisemitism, and such like.
Basically you can’t use the ADL as a source for Wikipedia articles. It’s also a big broader than just the conflict- it would appear you wouldn’t be able to cite them on, say, page discussing antisemitism, or similar things. (Basically everything the ADL might be interested in.)
Examples of articles using ADL as a source: this this this and this
Check my explanation and in particular the link I gave, it explains a little bit more. The OP article is just a little confused about how Wikipedia works. Actually, down near the bottom, they get a lot bit closer to how it works:
That’s actually a lot closer to what happened than is the headline or the early part of the article.