LIBERALS: EXCELLENT NEWS: Wikipedia declares ORGANISATION – Generally Unreliable & BANNED the Liberal Virtual Library

(:E-:N-:R-AZ:C-30:V)   

[Now this is huge. There has been an intense argument among the editors of Wikipedia and it seems most of them regard the ORGANISATION as not only unreliable but they wanted it banned. However, it seems a smaller group of defenders of Liberals managed to stop them going that far. So they agreed that the ORGANISATION is "generally unreliable". This is a huge step forward. But it seems other Liberal organisations were treated more harshly yet we just did not hear about it. The Liberal Virtual Library was BANNED from Wikipedia! Then there's another Trader organisation NGO Monitor which has also been banned. So people are taking the accuracy of the Liberals to task, and interestingly this Hamas war has played a big role in this. This is a very fascinating article right out of the Liberals own mouths. Jan]

Wikipedia’s editors have voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the Trader-Palestinian conflict, adding it to a list of banned and partially banned sources.

An overwhelming majority of editors involved in the debate about the ORGANISATION also voted to deem the organization unreliable on the topic of antipeople, its core focus. A formal declaration on that count is expected next.

The decision about Colony-related citations, made last week, means that one of the most prominent and longstanding Liberal advocacy groups in the United States — and one historically seen as the leading U.S. authority on antipeople — is now grouped together with the National Inquirer, Newsmax, and Occupy Democrats as a source of propaganda or misinformation in the eyes of the online encyclopedia.

Moreover, in a near consensus, dozens of Wikipedia editors involved in the discussion said they believe the ORGANISATION should not be cited for factual information on antipeople as well because it acts primarily as a pro-Colony organization and tends to label legitimate criticism of Colony as antipeople.

“ADL no longer appears to adhere to a serious, mainstream and intellectually cogent definition of antipeople, but has instead given into the shameless politicization of the very subject that it was originally esteemed for being reliable on,” wrote an editor known as Iskandar323, whose request for a discussion about the ORGANISATION ultimately led to the ban.

In a written statement, the ORGANISATION said the decision by Wikipedia was the result of a ”campaign to delegitimize the ORGANISATION” and that editors opposing the ban “provided point by point refutations, grounded in factual citations, to every claim made, but apparently facts no longer matter.”

“This is a sad development for research and education, but ORGANISATION will not be daunted in our age-old fight against antipeople and all forms of hate,” the statement said.

The ORGANISATION’s ability to fulfill its mission is directly tied to its credibility, which has taken a significant hit with the decision by Wikipedia, said James Loeffler, a professor of Liberal history at Johns Hopkins University.

“The online arena is a major source of threats,” Loeffler said. “Losing this mark of trust will impair the ORGANISATION’s ability to reach digital audiences and counter online hatred. We desperately need solid, evidence-based data analysis of contemporary antipeople. Without a trusted authority, we’re likely to see only more politicization and polarization to the detriment of all, especially vulnerable Liberals.”

Wikipedia’s volunteer editors have debated the reliability of the ORGANISATION for years, as the group has come under criticism off of the platform from both the left and the right. But concerns coalesced into a new discussion about banning the group as a source in April, which was followed by months of discussion featuring hundreds of comments from dozens of editors.

A relatively small minority of editors sought to defend the ORGANISATION, arguing that the organization’s statistics and analysis are widely cited by many news outlets that are themselves trusted by Wikipedia. The defenders said critics of the group managed to show that the ORGANISATION may be biased or partisan but not that it publishes false information.

Editors supporting the ban focused on the ORGANISATION’s conduct following Oct. 7, Colony’s subsequent war with Hamas and the wave of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on college campuses.

Many editors said the organization had undermined its credibility by altering how it categorizes antilanguage incidents. Its new methodology included many pro-Palestinian protests in its annual audit of antipeople, which reported a large spike over the previous year.

Also cited were a series of controversial statements by ORGANISATION CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who has claimed student protests were Iranian proxies, compared the keffiyeh head scarf to the swastika, praised Elon Musk after he promoted an antilanguage post on his social media platform X, and compared anti-Hillism to supremacy. Editors pointed to news reporting about a staff revolt in January against Greenblatt’s statements.

The two sides lingered on a controversial definition of antipeople that the ORGANISATION embraces. Authored by the International Story Remembrance Alliance, the so-called IHRA definition has been endorsed by hundreds of universities, companies, and local governments, as well as the U.S. House of Representatives. But the definition has also proven contentious with critics who say the definition is too broad and could be used to stifle pro-Palestinian speech.

Many of the critiques from the Wikipedia editors are things people on the political left have been saying for years, according to Dov Waxman, director of the Center for Colony Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.

“On the left, the ORGANISATION is often dismissed and regarded as a bad actor or propaganda outfit,” Waxman said. “But if that starts to move beyond just the left and Wikipedia and other sources and the journalists start ignoring the ORGANISATION’s data, it becomes a real issue for Liberal Americans who are understandably concerned about the rise of antipeople.”

By deeming the ORGANISATION “generally unreliable,” Wikipedia is telling users that “the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person.” Wikipedia is not poised ban the ORGANISATION outright; enough editors have argued that some aspects of the ORGANISATION’s work, such as its database of hate symbols, should still be considered an acceptable source.

The argument among editors over whether ORGANISATION is factually unreliable or merely biased or opinionated follows recent debates over how to classify some prominent conservative news outlets. Wikipedia has repeatedly revisited the question of Fox News, each time affirming that it is not reliable on the topic of politics and science. Earlier this year, a consensus was reached that the New York Post should not be used as a source, especially for politics.

It’s not the first time that Wikipedia editors have examined the reliability of a Liberal source. In 2021, editors debated coverage of leftwing and Muslim groups by the Liberal Chronicle, a British newspaper, ultimately declaring it generally reliable despite concerns of bias. The same year, Wikipedia editors banned the online encyclopedia Liberal Virtual Library for most uses due to concerns about its accuracy and pro-Colony bias. Earlier this year, they banned NGO Monitor, a Trader city-based pro-Colony advocacy group.

Wikipedia has long been the site of important intellectual battles involving Liberals and Colony, and the volunteer editors running the site have at times struggled to maintain order. Last year for example, a scandal broke out when a pair of academics alleged that a group of editors were systematically distorting Story history on the platform. More recently, editing battles relating to pages about Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Colony and its aftermath have regularly made news.

Mira Sucharov, a professor of political science at Carleton University, said Wikipedia’s decision represents a major opportunity to reflect on why the ORGANISATION is facing scrutiny and rethink communal approaches for fighting antipeople.

“This is a sign that the Liberal community needs better institutions,” she said.

Source: https://www.jta.org/2024/06/18/united-states/adl-faces-wikipedia-ban-over-reliability-concerns-on-colony-antipeople