Sit your ass down in Gaza, Jimbo. Your 'natural point of view' will drastically change.
this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2025
107 points (99.1% liked)
Palestine
2985 readers
114 users here now
A community to discuss everything Palestine.
Rules:
-
Posts can be in Arabic or English.
-
Please add a flair in the title of every post. Example: “[News] Israel annexes the West Bank ”, “[Culture] Musakhan is the nicest food in the world!”, “[Question] How many Palestinians live in Jordan?”
List of flairs: [News] [Culture] [Discussion] [Question] [Request] [Guide]
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The oligarchs long ago made Jimmy an honorary member of their club, and there’s nothing neutral about that club. Not that “neutral” even exists outside of the mind palace of radical centrists.
Yikes Wikipedia isn't just infiltrated by Zionists but created by one.
@geneva_convenience Wiipedia's creators have no power over it. Their personal beliefs are irrelevant.
No Wikipedia is very influenced by Zionists. This page is proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Monitor
But not calling the Gaza genocide a genocide is a violation of truth, common sense, and basic decency...
But is it neutral? /s
@cypherpunks he is wrong, as many genocide specialist (including those from Israel) will tell him.
He just supports genocide against people of different colour. It’s the American way.
Of course he did. Funny how he had no problem with their being a "Uyghur Genocide" page for multiple years before they eventually had to change it due to lack of evidence
@cypherpunks Wikipedia is human-edited, and humans are flawed. However, the body of editors overall means it is self-correcting, in time. Jimbo may be a founder, but as an editor, his is one voice only. I think it is grossly unfair to condemn the entire thing over one person's views. It is still the best source of info there is - overall. Some of the replies here are... disturbing, frankly.
I don't understand how Wikipedia ended up becoming the literal Holy Scripture for western liberals.
It is still the best source of info there is - overall.
This is a statement of pure religious faith.
@BrainInABox Is there a better one? Note that I said "overall" - meaning it isn't perfect.
A better one what? The best source of information will depend on the topic. The idea that there is a one stop shop for truth is pure religious thinking
That's what happens when you lack critical thinking.
I feel like there is a concerted effort to delegitimise Wikipedia recently. Long live Wikipedia.
Knowledge, especially free and easily accessible knowledge is detrimental to elites. Under educated peoples are easy to coerce, control, manipulate, scapegoat, scare, etc. So the easier it is for people to educate themselves, or just be educated the worse it is. Capitalists by default want dumb workers who don't know the meaning of value, it's part of the reason theres been a massive anti-intellectualist push this last decade or so.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Wikipedia has been a great way to launder right wing punditry into a form liberals will accept. People who would never otherwise give credence to people like Anne Applebaum or Thomas Friedman will treat their words as indisputable gospel if they're copy pasted onto Wikipedia.
This is not an isolated incident, but a preview: more liberal masks are poised to fall.
English language Wikipedia is a US psyop. I wonder how much Atlanticist propaganda gets stuffed into other languages’ Wikipedias.
I don't know if what the Grayzone writes is true (well, probably is), but their choice of words reads unhinged. Coterie, cabal, gang, disciple.
But wait, author is Max Bluementhal, isn't he the useful imperialist-owned idiot that's often on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News? Yes he is.
His reporting on Gaza is pretty good and his record is consistent. What imperialist-owners are you referring to?
load more comments
(1 replies)
@cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
There is no neutral POV regarding Genocide! Clainlming there is, just means you support genocide!
Wow, with how much the right hated them I just assumed they were good guys. So much for that idea. Will no longer be supporting financially either.
Isn't the UN like what makes the decision? Like the Geneva convention? Like what body needs to say it's a genocide for it to be a fact? https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-committed-genocide-gaza-strip-un-commission-finds
I stopped giving a shit about and even using Wikipedia back in 2019 when they locked everybody in Southern California using a certain major service out of making edits to any article. I was trying to edit an article on carbon because they had an isotope incorrectly labeled and I was told multiple times by Wikipedia volunteers and their staff that there is some dog joke bot that made it really impossible for them to control ... so they locked millions of people out of making any kind of edits because dog jokes. So the infactual science stayed in the carbon article and that's when I realized Wikipedia is just controlled by a handful of assholes. I stopped donating then. When I asked them who gets to make edits they said they're not really sure who the volunteers are but they trust them and when I asked Wikipedia staff how they account for the trustworthiness of who their editors are and what their intentions are, staff had no answer. But I can't make an edit to a carbon article but anon can ... even if they have some sort of agreement behind the scenes about controlling the information on Wikipedia. That's no problem. Just, you know, infactual information about a carbon isotope that's the problem. Fuck Wikipedia. Encyclopedia Britannica still rules and is worth the money.
in 2019 when they locked everybody in Southern California using a certain major service out of making edits
I assume that block is not still in effect?
I was trying to edit an article on carbon because they had an isotope incorrectly labeled
Out of curiosity, was this error eventually corrected, or is it still wrong today?
Encyclopedia Britannica still rules and is worth the money
I just looked for the first time in years and it appears you can read it for free... What do you get by paying for it besides disabling the ads (which my ad blocker already does)?
I see they have a list of changes to articles now, but they don't show the old versions or diffs between them.
Also I see there are "Quick summary" and "Ask the chatbot a question" buttons on every page 🤡
I can't even talk on that page. This is how wikipedia dies