Wikipedia editors label Israel guilty of genocide
submitted by
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
allisrael.com/wikipedia-editors-label-israel-gu…
submitted by
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
allisrael.com/wikipedia-editors-label-israel-gu…
Wikipedia was historically very pro-Israel, this is a pleasant suprise.
The summary of the debate Wikipedians had:
Wikipedia is not a democracy, but still, since this conclusion is couched in democratic terms, I think it's worth engaging with it on that level. It's not clear to me how those numbers—23/26/32—were arrived at. They mention some people were in favour of multiple options, are those numbers counting them twice, Approval Voting style? Or only taking what is perceived to be their absolute favourite, FPTP style? If the former, then this is very obviously the right decision, especially when you take into account that the poor arguments used were un-wikipedian and should be down-weighted. If the latter, it becomes much, much more difficult to justify through sheer numbers. As stated, options 1 and 2 experienced a lot of cross-support, and so in an imagined IRV vote you might end up with something like 49-32, a *strong* vote in favour of option 2. Maybe more like 45-33 if you consider some exhausted votes who really don't want another option and some who even jump from 1 to 3. And less once you down-weight the un-wikipedian answers, but probably still not *so much* less unless that "down-weighting" is to 0. So justifying option 3 becomes comparatively difficult, purely as a numbers game.
But skimming through a few of the actual detailed responses, I didn't see *any* opposition to option 3 that even *vaguely* stood up to scrutiny. Which makes sense, because it just says what all of us have been saying for months.
MBFC of all things.
For once NATOpedia concedes.
That article is fucking hilarious holy shit. Thanks for the laugh @yogthos@lemmy.ml