The crying “History” button at the top right sends its regards. Yes, the World Jewish Congress has published a report that demands Wikipedia add a feature to view the history of articles, see what actions were performed by whom, and “host forums and discussions within the Wikipedia community to address concerns about neutrality and gather feedback for policy improvements”. It also wants to force all admins and above to reveal their real names.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    758 months ago

    this PDF will probably be referenced in the “genocide denial” article in the not-too-distant future

    • AatubeOP
      link
      fedilink
      32
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The present report does not seem intended to be an academic publication, although it has already been used as a citation in the article Wikipedia and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

      • Tar_Alcaran
        link
        fedilink
        English
        108 months ago

        But primary research isn’t allowed as a source on Wikipedia…

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          118 months ago

          (someone smarter than me correct me if im wrong but) in this case it’s considered a non-primary source since the article is citing what the WJC said about Wikipedia (their criticism), not the WJC’s original research on the subject.

          disclaimer have edited wikipedia maybe once in my life, only a small clue what im talking about

          • AatubeOP
            link
            fedilink
            28 months ago

            That’s correct, except it’s still considered a primary source, which can be cited to see what a group said if due.

              • AatubeOP
                link
                fedilink
                108 months ago

                Primary sources and research cannot be cited to support objective facts. However, they can be used to cite criticism from a group. The only difference with your original reply is that being cited as criticism instead of fact does not magically make the source secondary.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  28 months ago

                  okay gotcha thanks for the clarification! love me an internet discussion that ends with me being smarter

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        08 months ago

        right, i kind of used the word “referenced” there intentionally, since the actual article would likely cite an actual academic publication which speaks on the matter

        thanks for the info!

        • AatubeOP
          link
          fedilink
          18 months ago

          (I meant to quote from the article but forgot to style it as a blockquote)

          (speaking of which, Wikipedia’s editors hate decoration, which they consider to be juvenile and include that little pastel vertical line on the left of blockquotes, in favor of the browser default of indenting the quote on both sides)