This article is equally as unhinged as the people it’s criticizing. Referring to the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Arabs as a “war against Israel” is next level dehumanization, but unfortunately par for the course for Zionist drivel.
> and glowingly cited the story of the Prophet Muhammad being told by Allah to kill any Jew hiding behind a tree or a rock in order to bring about the Day of Judgment
It's clearly a flagrant lie that deliberately changes the meaning of an apocalyptic supernatural end-times narration into something that it's clearly not. the narration describes what will happen and is evidently and clearly not giving any commands like the bad-faith writer of that article distorts it to be.
This is your daily reminder that Wikipedia does not deserve its reputation. I've seen how the sausage is made, and rat meat is a surprisingly frequent ingredient. And it's not just Israel-Palestine, but all kinds of stuff.
A key weakness of Wikipedia is selective and inconsistent enforcement of its policies (which can be pretty blatant around WP:CIVIL), often abetted by its consensus mechanism. Another core problem is "the rules of the game have become the game," (for instance, maneuvering in the reliable-sources noticeboard is done to with an eye towards pushing a particular narrative).
> inconsistent enforcement of its policies (which can be pretty blatant around WP:CIVIL
One of the most interesting phenomena I've come across is the way that the Assume Good Faith guideline is abused. In all the instances where I've seen it cited in a dispute, it's always a situation that goes like this:
A and B are at odds.
A is on the wrong side.
A begins to trot out a list of guidelines and policies that B has purportedly run afoul of.
Wanting to pad the list of infractions, A cites WP:AGF with really shaky rationale.
Let's examine this. The Assume Good Faith rule is basically the same in spirit as the rule here on HN that says to be charitable and respond to the strongest reading of a given comment, not the weakest one. In other words, for a given remark/comment from a person, go with the interpretation that is most favorable to the other person. By accusing B of violating AGF, A is doing the very opposite what AGF prescribes, and doing so in a really perverse way.
10 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 38.0 ms ] thread> and glowingly cited the story of the Prophet Muhammad being told by Allah to kill any Jew hiding behind a tree or a rock in order to bring about the Day of Judgment
A key weakness of Wikipedia is selective and inconsistent enforcement of its policies (which can be pretty blatant around WP:CIVIL), often abetted by its consensus mechanism. Another core problem is "the rules of the game have become the game," (for instance, maneuvering in the reliable-sources noticeboard is done to with an eye towards pushing a particular narrative).
One of the most interesting phenomena I've come across is the way that the Assume Good Faith guideline is abused. In all the instances where I've seen it cited in a dispute, it's always a situation that goes like this:
A and B are at odds.
A is on the wrong side.
A begins to trot out a list of guidelines and policies that B has purportedly run afoul of.
Wanting to pad the list of infractions, A cites WP:AGF with really shaky rationale.
Let's examine this. The Assume Good Faith rule is basically the same in spirit as the rule here on HN that says to be charitable and respond to the strongest reading of a given comment, not the weakest one. In other words, for a given remark/comment from a person, go with the interpretation that is most favorable to the other person. By accusing B of violating AGF, A is doing the very opposite what AGF prescribes, and doing so in a really perverse way.