When the media decides who you are rooting for.
I haven't combed through the recent edits, but the most recent version of the Gaza War article lists the folllowing
(isis not listed above)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_war
keep in mind this page was originally titled Israel Hamas war, wikipedia is a battle ground, there's a lot of people putting in the time, doing the work
I won't surrender wikipedia, if there are communists involved, we will always win.
Liberals, think about it when you're going post yet another pro-US hit piece from that place as gotcha.
This is why your elementary school teacher didn't accept Wikipedia as a source. Actually, is that still a thing in schools? It's honestly infuriating to see how normalized it's becoming to use Wikipedia as a source of absolute unbiased truth is especially for the things the West hates. You give someone on Lemmy ten different primary sources and they go "duuh Wikipedia says you're wrong" which gets you ratioed to hell and back. And if you point out the glaring issues with Wikipedia they just accuse you of being a Chinese bot because they can't even fathom how Wikipedia can possibly not be reliable.
Also, the people defending Wikipedia usually use the argument that it uses a lot of primary sources. Great! Cite those sources then, not Wikipedia. It's not a substitute for primary sources just because it uses them. Actually look through the sources vs the article body and you'll find TONS of citations on Wikipedia where the source material is misinterpreted, out of context, doesn't even mention the topic, or even straight up contradicts the claim being cited. Weirdly enough those kinds of mistakes don't get moderated nearly as often when they're in line with Western propaganda vs a rebuttal to it, wonder why.
Actually, is that still a thing in schools?
Its AI trained on wikipedia articles now
This link was originally added about 3 months ago by a single user and then removed by another, and ISIS was previously listed as an Israeli ally. Wikipedia is not a monolith.
ISIS was on the Israeli side. Which it literally is with the Abu Shabab gang.
Yes, and it still is on the Israeli side under 'Popular forces'. The article for Popular Forces specifically mentions abu-shabab.
They reworked it into popular forces when it's literally just ISIS.
Also the death count at the top of the Wikipedia page invented 50 people who don't exist. It's 1139.
Look, maybe you're right about that stuff, but it's pretty clear the image you shared doesn't reflect any reasonable interpretation of what happened on this wiki. You got duped. It's ok. Happens to everyone. Some turd attempted to smear Palestinians, and apparently, 2 hours wasn't fast enough for a volunteer to fix. The page DOES link Israeli support to Abu-shabab, who Israel has linked to ISIS. That dude can be bad even with no links to ISIS.
You don't seem to understand. They removed a very clear connection to ISIS from Wikipedia, because everyone who saw it knows how bad that looks. Nobody is going to pop out the menu and then click on "popular forces" to find out that it is ISIS.
Also this is definitely not just some random dude. These are organized efforts from the Israeli government to edit Wikipedia in their favor.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups
I DO understand. Clearly, I do, since I bothered to dig into Wikipedia's very public history. The person who made the edit primarily made edits in ways that were defamatory to Palestinians and a few token attempts to hide their agenda. They are currently topic locked for the article in question. Maybe it's not a random dude, but I can't personally say for sure what this person is up to. None of this is relevant to the image that you shared clearly, including the IS being a Palestinians ally (which is false). You can't idiot proof information because idiots can't be trusted to read.
My mistake: ISIS was added as a Hamas ally and removed TODAY. Within 2 hours of being posted.
people of the west rely on wikipedia as a news source; so it's ALWAYS being watched.
I believe you, but what a mistake to make with zero corroboration.
wikipedia isn't exactly reliable source of truth anyways. lol