Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Israel-Palestine dispute
> Media Forums > News Worth Discussing
Cla68
I don't see anyone has started a topic on this Jerusalem Post article.
TungstenCarbide
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 18th May 2010, 11:44pm) *

I don't see anyone has started a topic on this Jerusalem Post article.

That's actually a very good article - it describes a lot of things that are hard to articulate for a non-Wikipedian. (I don't have an opinion though on the Israel-Palestine feud at Wikipedia, so not sure how accurate some of its positions are.)

Anyone remember that Jewish organization that used to advertise jobs for Wikipedia editing?
thekohser
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 18th May 2010, 8:29pm) *

Anyone remember that Jewish organization that used to advertise jobs for Wikipedia editing?


Wasn't it CAMERA or something?
dogbiscuit
QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Wed 19th May 2010, 1:29am) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Tue 18th May 2010, 11:44pm) *

I don't see anyone has started a topic on this Jerusalem Post article.

That's actually a very good article - it describes a lot of things that are hard to articulate for a non-Wikipedian. (I don't have an opinion though on the Israel-Palestine feud at Wikipedia, so not sure how accurate some of its positions are.)

Anyone remember that Jewish organization that used to advertise jobs for Wikipedia editing?

A good article in that it articulates the battleground in a fairly readable manner, but, of course, it is hopelessly entrenched in the view that it is the Palestinians who are unfairly manipulating Wikipedia, there was no sense of any Israeli wrongdoing - and I did not get any sense of a conclusion of "if that is the problem, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the solution".
The Adversary
QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 19th May 2010, 2:58am) *

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 18th May 2010, 8:29pm) *

Anyone remember that Jewish organization that used to advertise jobs for Wikipedia editing?
Wasn't it CAMERA or something?
Yes, but CAMERA did not pay its members, AFAIK. There are other groups out there who apparently do; but they go more on specific religious issues.

As for the Jerusalem Post -article; two things: if there is an "organized campaign" to add a "pro-Palestinian" view, then I am deeply disappointed that nobody has told me about it! tongue.gif

Secondly, my bet is that Drork is one of the "unnamed" informants of this article. (So Greg; you are no longer the only banned editor on the list of speakers over at meta. ) A couple of years ago, he appeared more openly.

Some of the most interesting stuff there are the comments: Comment #32 is certainly false, (made by the Runtshit-vandal?), and comment #4 is probably the Runtshit-vandal himself, bragging about vandalizing 60,000 entries on wikipedia. (That number is probably not far from the truth too high, however; he say it is a team; I don´t believe him; judging by the time of day he operate.)

And comment #39, is that really you, Emperor? Judging by your entry on the Golan Heights it could be. ermm.gif

I think the best comment on the article comes from Norman Finkelstein:
Stalin purges editors of Soviet Encyclopedia after discovery that 1.2% of entries don’t mention his name biggrin.gif

<edit>
It is also discussed here: Jerusalem Post. Israeli-Palestinian conflict rages on Wikipedia
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.