Wikipedia has officially added “Gaza genocide” to its “List of Genocides” page, marking a major shift in how Israel’s aggression on the besieged enclave is being documented on the world’s largest online encyclopaedia.
The addition, which now appears as the first entry due to the list’s reverse chronological order, comes after months of extensive debate among the platform’s editors. On its “Gaza genocide” page, it states that “Experts, governments, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental organisations have accused Israel of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian people during its invasion and bombing of the Gaza Strip in the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.”
The entry for “List of genocides,” Wikipedia states that “Israel has been accused by experts, governments, UN agencies and non-governmental organisations of carrying out a genocide against the Palestinian population during its invasion and bombing of Gaza during the ongoing Israel–Hamas war.” The page goes on to list the death toll in Gaza while mentioning that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians killed are civilians.
Saying that there were even a debate going on tells a lot about the state of Wikipedia and it’s editorial makeup.
Not really. Wikipedia is not a democracy. It would only take a handful of dedicated zionists to kick up a fuss to create the debate. The fact that it arrived at the right conclusion is a testament to Wikipedia’s editorial policies.
See WP:NOT and WP:CON for some idea of how this whole thing works.
I think there’s an important caveat here. Yes, it’s not a democracy, but I don’t think stirring up a fuss is as easy as citing various wiki editing policies and starting arguments. If you invoke them frivolously you aren’t going to succeed at making edits.
I think what’s incredibility obvious to you and I is an area of willful and encouraged ignorance for some who benefit from the results of their ignorance. I think that the media is largely complicit is beyond distasteful, but it’s also the reality we live in.
I also think it’s important for wikipedia to work through their own NPOV policies. It should be applauded that they eventually arrived at the correct conclusion, AND moreso that they spent time considering and discarding contrary positions.
Accepting one particular viewpoint with no consideration is dogmatism, and is not helpful to progressive causes.