Andy

I addressed this in several other responses.

I’m aware that there is a strong consensus among the actual scholars who study this. The issue is that a consensus is being obstructed throug editorial control by elites. The question being debated, imo, isn’t whether Israel committed genocide (we all know they have). It’s whether Wikipedia breaking standard procedures is a sound strategy to circumvent the suppression of truth by elites.

I think the case in both directions is strong. It’s very appealing in the short term.

Can you specify which alternatives you’re talking about?

Also, I don’t know what’s specifically questionable about any of this. I haven’t disputed or justified anything. I’ve just expressed a contrary opinion on tactics.

I want to be clear.

I know it’s a genocide, and I agree that this is the consensus of academic scholars. The only real dispute is coming from donors who can manipulate the editorial process.

This is the crux of the dispute within Wikipedia: when the system works correctly, scholars write; their institutions publish; Wikipedia summarizes. But if bad actors interrupt the execution of step 2, should Wikipedia break protocol further to circumvent the attack? Or effectively allow it to be successful to maintain process?

I think the argument for the former is compelling, but I think Wales recognizes the downstream consequences, and I think I very reluctantly agree.

The bad actors do need to be countered. I just don’t think Wikipedia is an effective tool to do so.

I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I think Wales is correct.

I understand this seems irrational, because of course Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And Wikipedia’s job is to describe reality, right?

Wrong. Wikipedia’s job is to describe historical and scientific consensus. It is fundamental to their mission that they do all they can to avoid arbitrating disputes. I know that’s painful, but it’s a matter of roles: academics and media organizations arbitrate, and Wikipedia’s role is to catalog and communicate the consensus these organizations reach.

It’s terrible that a minority of biased actors have managed to prevent media and academic institutions from reaching consensus when the subject is so straightforward and obvious. But until that is addressed, unfortunately Wikipedia is hampered from describing the consensus reality by the needs of their core mission. They are designed to be downstream of these organizations, and they have to be to remain effective to their core mission. It’s like how the UN lets war criminals like Netanyahu visit and speak. As much as we’d all like them to kick him the hell out, doing so undermines the core purpose of the institution. It’s uncomfortable, but it’s the job description.

I think one solution is that their should be more than one crowd-sourced encyclopedia for the world. Wikipedia will always suffer from a Western, English-speaking bias.

Deal removes constraint on OpenAI’s ability to raise capital

I think they mean “raze”…

Agreed. His comments are so bizarrely stupid on so many levels.

They’re not just “wrong”: they’re half-right-half-wrong. And the half that is wrong is idiotic in the extreme, while the half that is right casually acknowledges a civilizational crisis like someone watching their neighbors screaming in a house fire while sipping a cup of coffee.

Like this farmer analogy: the farmers were right! Their way of life and all that mattered to them was largely exterminated by these changes, and we’re living in their worst nightmare! And he even goes so far as acknowledging this, and acknowledging that we’ll likely experience the same thing. We’re all basically cart horses at the dawn of the automobile, and we might actually hate where this is going. But… It’ll probably be great.

He just has a hunch that even though all evidence suggests that this will lead to the opposite of the greatest good for the greatest number of people, for some reason his brain can’t shake the sense that it’s going to be good anyway. I mean, it has to be, otherwise that would make him a monster! And that simply can’t be the case. So there you have it.

It’ll be terrible great.

100%.

Peter Frase deconstructed this in an article a decade ago (and subsequent book) “Four Futures”.

It’s really not complicated. Saying 'the rich want to make us all obsolete and then kill us off ’ sounds paranoid and reactionary, but if you actually study these dynamics critically that’s a pretty good distillation of what they’d like to do, and they’re not really concealing it.

While I wouldn’t wish this on anyone, it’s amazing how self-destructive this is. Greta is an internationally famous activist. Flagrantly violating and abusing a person with world renown - along with dozens of other activists - is a radically stupid way to hasten international isolation.

It is well known by most in Israel that the country simply cannot function in isolation. It will lead to collapse. In this, they are giving the flotilla far more power to eventually overthrow the ruling regime.